Access to this full-text is provided by PLOS.
Content available from PLOS One
This content is subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Originality in online dating profile texts: How
does perceived originality affect impression
formation and what makes a text original?
Tess van der ZandenID*, Alexander P. Schouten, Maria B. J. Mos, Emiel J. Krahmer
Department of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences, Tilburg
University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
*T.vdrZanden@tilburguniversity.edu
Abstract
This paper investigates origins and consequences of perceived profile text originality. The
first goal was to examine whether the perceived originality of authentic online dating profile
texts affects online daters’ perceptions of attractiveness, and whether perceptions of (less)
desired partner personality traits mediate this effect. Results showed the positive impact of
perceived profile text originality on impression formation: text originality positively affects
perceptions of intelligence and sense of humor, which improve impressions of attractive-
ness and boost dating intention. The second goal was to explore what profile text features
increase perceptions of profile text originality. Results revealed profile texts which were sty-
listically original (e.g., include metaphors) and contained more and concrete self-disclosure
statements were considered more original, explaining almost half of the variance in original-
ity scores. Taken together, our results suggest that perceived originality in profile texts is
manifested in both meaning and form, and is a balancing act between novelty and
appropriateness.
Introduction
In music, movies, and books, originality may be seen as one of the best ways to someone’s
heart. Not only is original work considered more attractive, as opposed to less original work,
but this also generalizes to the producer of the work [1]. It was through the texts they wrote
that Lord Byron, Honore
´de Balzac, and Victor Hugo achieved good regard and hence con-
quered (many) hearts [2]. Other research on professional and non-professional writers also
found that the success of writers, as for example measured by number of publications or text
evaluations, can indicate writers’ success in attracting potential partners [3,4].
According to Sternberg [5], “few psychological constructs have proved more elusive to
define” (p. 126) than creativity and originality, which may also explain the variation in defini-
tions used for the constructs (e.g., [6,7]). This study uses the term (text) originality to refer to
texts that are not common and differ from most others in the specific communicative setting
for which they are written, with original texts being a potential result of the creative process
that has taken place.
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 1 / 22
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: van der Zanden T, Schouten AP, Mos
MBJ, Krahmer EJ (2022) Originality in online dating
profile texts: How does perceived originality affect
impression formation and what makes a text
original? PLoS ONE 17(10): e0274860. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860
Editor: Andrea Fronzetti Colladon, Universita degli
Studi di Perugia, ITALY
Received: February 22, 2022
Accepted: September 7, 2022
Published: October 19, 2022
Copyright: ©2022 van der Zanden et al. This is an
open access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: The data underlying
this article are available on the Open Science
Framework, at: https://osf.io/yns83/. This is also
mentioned in the paper.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific
funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
A range of methods has been used to measure originality in texts, with for example studies
on prose, poetry, and song lyrics using objective measurements such as the number of unique
words (e.g., [8–10]). While most of these studies found that originality can predict a product’s
popularity and success, less is known about what texts people deem original, and how percep-
tions about a text’s originality affect impressions that are formed about writers of these texts.
What specific features constitute originality in texts that are perceived as being original is also
understudied. These issues are taken up in the current study, in the context of online dating
profile texts, where an original text may be particularly relevant to attract potential romantic
partners.
In online dating, the free-text component of dating profiles offers many opportunities to be
original. An original dating profile text can be effective to attract attention, which may be par-
ticularly appealing now that the greater use of online dating increases the number of users and
profiles of these people [11]. Moreover, if originality in writing is indeed evaluated positively,
profiles that are perceived as original may also be seen as attractive, and owners of these pro-
files might then have more success in attracting potential romantic partners. Yet, there is no
research that investigates how perceived originality in online dating profiles affects impression
formation and how it is constituted in profile texts. To investigate this, the present study con-
tains a perception study and a content analysis.
The goal of the perception study is to investigate the relation between perceived profile text
originality, personality impressions, and attractiveness impressions. More specifically, it is
examined whether the relationship between perceived profile text originality and impressions
of attractiveness and dating intention is mediated by perceptions of personality traits consid-
ered more and less attractive in romantic partners, namely intelligence, sense of humor, and
oddness. The participants in this study were users of web-based dating sites, with a large
majority registered on a website that primarily caters to users over 50 years and relies on dating
profiles on which the textual component plays a central part. They were presented with a maxi-
mum of five of a total of 308 different authentic dating profile texts and were asked to evaluate
the profile (owner).
In the content analysis, we then try to identify the characteristics that are predictive of pro-
file texts that are perceived as original. Research suggests that original texts should be different
from what others write (novel) but should also be socially meaningful (appropriate; [12]), and
that texts can be original in what is written (meaning) and/or how the text is written (form;
e.g., [6]). For that reason, both meaning and form characteristics were included in the analyses.
All profile texts of the perception study were both manually and automatically coded on a
number of features that could be indicative of perceived text originality. Online daters’ origi-
nality scores given to the texts were then used to examine what characteristics resulted in
increased perceptions of profile text originality.
Taken together, this study adds to the current literature on online dating, but the implica-
tions of this study may also more broadly contribute to theory on (perceived) originality in
texts. Results of the perception study provide insights on whether people generally agree on
what texts are original, and to what extent the perceived originality of texts affects perceptions
of writers. Results of the exploratory content analysis reveal whether it is possible to identify
characteristics that make a text appear original, and whether perceived text originality is a mul-
tifaceted construct that is manifested by characteristics of meaning and form.
Perceived originality in online dating profile texts
For profile owners, dating profiles seem to have two related purposes: to display an attractive
self and to catch the attention of potential partners (e.g., [11,13]). The free-text component of
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 2 / 22
dating profiles, in the form of profile texts, can be used to serve either of the goals. On web-
based dating sites, the profile text is often created in a section called “This is me” or “Who am
I?”, in which profile owners are asked to describe themselves in their own words [14], for
example by writing about their occupation, personality, favorite interests and activities, and
desired relationship partner and relationship goals.
An original text on a profile is one way to attract attention and to positively affect impres-
sions. But from both the perspective of profile owners and profile observers, originality can
potentially be a concern as well [15–17]. Profile owners have indicated they struggle with bal-
ancing a desire to stand out with the need to blend in [15]. Dating profile observers, on the
other side, mentioned in interview studies that the lack of originality and creativity and the
(over)abundance of cliche
´s may lead to negative attitudes towards profiles and their owners
[16,17]. Various dating sites address this concern, and advise their users to write unique profile
texts. For example, on their website, dating platform eHarmony [18] states “users whose pro-
files are heavy on the cliche
´s tend to get fewer messages and responses than those whose pro-
files show thought, originality and a genuine sense of humor.”
The vast majority of profile texts still appear cliche
´-ridden and generic [16,17,19] and show
a high level of predictability [20]. Most profile owners present similarly (selective) information
in which common attributes, such as self-descriptions of being spontaneous and kind, and
common interests and activities are emphasized (e.g., love to laugh and travel, like to sip wine
by fireplaces, go for romantic strolls on the beach; [16,17]). To be more original in their profile
text, therefore, profile owners could write texts that are novel and differ (in some way) from
what is generally seen, both regarding the (personal) information that is provided and in the
phrasing, word and stylistic choices that are made.
Such highly generic profiles full of cliche
´s often lack novelty, but are simultaneously highly
appropriate (i.e., they follow all conventions regarding these texts). Appropriateness is the
other important dimension that influences perceptions of originality [12]. What is appropriate
highly depends on shared expectations, conventions, and norms that have emerged over time
in the specific context of online dating profiles, which simultaneously generates assumptions
about what (linguistic) behavior is unexpected [21,22]. Following the expectation violations
theory of Burgoon and Jones [23], profile texts that do not conform to existing conventions,
such as those that do not contain any personal information, negatively violate (social) expec-
tancies and norms [24]. Such unexpected behavior can, in turn, negatively affect impression
formation, for instance with regard to general favorability [25]. It thus seems that the original-
ity of a profile text may positively affect impressions that others form about the profile owner’s
attractiveness, but only so long as it happens within the boundaries of appropriateness.
The positive correlation between creativity and the personality traits intelligence and sense
of humor may be one of the mechanisms behind this positive effect of originality (e.g.,
[26,27]). It has been argued that to be creative at least a moderate level of (verbal) intelligence
is necessary [28]. Research even suggests there is a substantial overlap between cognitive intel-
ligence and creativity [26,29], with intelligent people being better at self-expression and lan-
guage play [30]. Gao and colleagues [28] examined this in a dating context and found that
women were more willing to date men who used metaphorical language to compliment their
appearance than those using literal language (e.g., “Your eyes are shining stars” vs. “You have
beautiful eyes”). Men producing metaphorical compliments did not only score higher on a ver-
bal intelligence test, but they were also perceived as more intelligent [28].
Besides increased positive perceptions of intelligence, the perceived originality of a profile
text may also enhance positive perceptions about a profile owner’s sense of humor. Online dat-
ers use humor in their profile texts as a strategy to appear unique and more creative [17]. Posi-
tive correlations have been found between perceptions of creativity and sense of humor (e.g.,
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 3 / 22
[26,27,31,32]). It has been suggested that since humor and creativity share many features, such
as playfulness and risk taking, humor can even be seen as a subset of creativity [33]. Therefore,
some level of (verbal) creativity is required to generate humor (e.g., [27,33]).
Both intelligence and humor are, in turn, important determinants when assessing the
attractiveness of a potential partner (e.g., [34,35]). Also in an online dating context, it has been
shown that owners of profiles that appear to be more intelligent (e.g., [36]) and humorous
(e.g., [37,38]) are deemed more desirable relationship partners. In all, we pose the following
two hypotheses:
H1. Perceived profile text originality increases perceptions of profile owners’ intelligence
which, in turn, positively affect perceptions of profile owners’ attractiveness and dating
intention.
H2. Perceived profile text originality increases perceptions of profile owners’ sense of
humor which, in turn, positively affect perceptions of profile owners’ attractiveness and dating
intention.
However, in the context of online dating, where presenting the (attractive) self to potential
romantic partners is the foremost purpose of profiles, the appeal of coming across as original
may be constrained by the need to stick to conventions: daters’ expectations about the kind of
profile cues that are appropriate and meaningful have to be taken into account as well [21,22].
As such, it may be expected that writers of profile texts that do not satisfy the appropriateness
criteria, for example when regular conventions are exceeded, may come across as odd. Odd-
ness here refers to owners of profiles that score high on perceived strangeness, eccentricity,
and peculiarity (e.g., [39–42] by “acting and thinking in creative and unusual ways which sets
them apart from their more conventional peers” [43; p. 205).
Once a profile owner does not conform to social expectations and norms in a particular sit-
uation or context, this can guide impression formation, such as about the person’s social skills.
In the online dating context, profile owners who deviate too much from others in how they
textually present themselves may be evaluated as being peculiar in their way of thinking. More
specifically, if a profile text deviates to such an extent that it is no longer appropriate in the dat-
ing context, this may suggest that this person also behaves distinctively in other situations,
such as in face-to-face encounters or in later relationship stages. This can negatively affect the
predictability of the anticipated behavior of these profile owners, which is considered uncom-
fortable and undesirable in dating contexts (e.g., [44,45]). Indeed, in the context of flirting
behaviors in public settings (e.g., in a club), White and colleagues [46] found that the percent-
age of participants favoring unexpected behavior of potential romantic partners (8.11% of the
participants; e.g., a person reciting Shakespeare to the participant) was lower compared to
those who preferred highly expected behavior (57.12% of the participants, e.g., a person adding
the participant on Instagram). This leads to the following hypothesis:
H3. Perceived profile text originality increases perceptions of profile owners’ oddness
which, in turn, negatively affect perceptions of profile owners’ attractiveness and dating
intention.
In the second part of our study, we investigate the specific characteristics that determine
perceived originality in texts. Research is scarce on what exact characteristics increase percep-
tions of originality in dating profile texts, but previous research has highlighted that both
meaning (or content) and form (or style) can determine text originality (e.g., [8,47]). De Saus-
sure [48] was one of the first linguists who posed that in language, meaning (the “signified”)
and form (the “signifier”) together convey a communicative message (the “sign”). It is
expected that perceived originality in dating profile texts is also manifested through both char-
acteristics of meaning and form.
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 4 / 22
Meaning involves the content that is provided or the concept that is represented, which also
includes the (type of) topics that are discussed in a text. For example, previous research has
shown that in (popular) sonnets and song lyrics characteristics such as a wide range of differ-
ent topics and including highly specific and rare topics–in relation to other texts in the genre–
can be indicative of originality [8,47–50], and we conjecture that comparable meaning features
increase perceptions of originality in dating profile texts.
Form refers to the language style that is used to make meaning. Various forms can be used
to describe specific content or a concept: “I’m looking for my other half” and “I hope to find
someone to fall head over heels for” are two other forms to express “Looking for a (long-term)
relationship partner”. Writers’ stylistic choices may also enhance a text’s imagery and vivid-
ness, which is another important attribute that has been associated with originality (e.g.,
[51,52]). Earlier research found that the popularity of original work is negatively associated
with imagery of abstract ideas and concepts and positively associated with imagery of concrete
experiences, sensations, and desires [47,50]. Examples of form characteristics that could evoke
readers’ affect, images, and other sensory inputs are the use of more unique and concrete
words, and more metaphors and other figures of speech [6,28,50]. Similar form characteristics
may be observed in dating profile texts that are perceived as original.
In addition to the hypothesis-testing perception study, we also explore what specific text
characteristics increase perceptions of profile text originality. To do so, we use the originality
ratings given to all 308 texts in the perception study to construct a codebook with a number of
features that may be indicative of perceived profile text originality. These 308 profile texts are
then coded on those features. By doing so, we aim to answer the research question for the con-
tent analysis part of this study, which is: What characteristics in online dating profile texts
increase perceptions of profile text originality?
Both the perception study and content analysis study are preregistered on the Open Science
Framework (OSF; see https://osf.io/yns83/). In Spring 2020, the Research Ethics and Data
Management Committee (REDC) of the school of our university provided ethical clearance to
conduct both studies.
Perception study: Effects of perceived profile text originality
Method
Participants. 1234 participants took part in this study, all with an account on one of the
two web-based dating sites with whom we collaborated for this study. The collaborating dating
sites were: 50PlusMatch, which presents itself as a dating site for active people of 50 years or
older, and Pepper, a general-purpose dating site. From all participants, 1153 were members of
50PlusMatch (93.4%) and 81 of Pepper (6.6%). The participants’ mean age was 63.5 years
(SD = 12.1) and Dutch was the native language of 96.9% of the participants. Almost half of
them indicated to be female (47.2%), and 96.4% indicated to feel mostly attracted to the oppo-
site sex. More than half of the participants had a vocational or high school level degree
(54.7%), and 44.7% had obtained a college degree.
Both sites assisted with participant recruitment but were not involved in any further aspects
of the study, such as the experimental setup or the study outcomes. Participation was on a vol-
untary basis. The participants could participate in a raffle for ten vouchers of a three-months
free membership of the dating site.
Materials. To construct the materials for this study, 308 profile texts were selected from a
sample of 31,163 dating profiles from two existing Dutch dating sites (other sites than the par-
ticipants’ sites). These profiles were written by people with different ages and education levels.
A large subset of the sample were profiles from a general dating site, the remainder were
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 5 / 22
profiles from a site with only higher educated members (3.25%). The collection of this corpus
was part of an earlier research project [53] for which we scraped in March 2017 profiles with
the online tool Web Scraper and for which we obtained separate approval by the REDC of the
school of our university. Only parts of profiles (i.e., the first 500 characters) were extracted,
and if the text ended in an incomplete sentence because the upper limit of 500 characters had
been retrieved, this sentence fragment was removed. This maximum of 500 characters also
allowed use to create a sample in which text length variation was limited. For the current
paper, we relied on this corpus for the selection of the 308 profile texts which served as starting
point for the perception study. Texts that contained fewer than ten words, were written fully in
another language than Dutch, included only the general introduction generated by the dating
site, or included references to pictures were not selected for this study.
A central question in our study was what constitutes originality in dating profile texts.
Because we did not know this prior to the study, we used authentic dating profile texts to con-
struct the materials for the study instead of fictitious profile texts that we created ourselves. To
guarantee the privacy of the original profile text writers, all texts used in the study were pseu-
donymized, which means that identifiable information was swapped with information from
other profile texts or replaced by comparable information (e.g., “My name is John” became
“My name is Ben”, and “bear55” became “teddy56”). Texts that could not be pseudonymized
were not used. None of the 308 profile texts used for this study can thus be traced back to the
original writer.
A preliminary scan by the authors showed little variation in originality among the vast
majority of texts from the corpus, with most texts containing fairly generic self-descriptions of
the profile owner. Therefore, a random sample from the entire corpus would result in little var-
iation in perceived text originality scores, making it difficult to examine how variation in origi-
nality scores affects impressions. As we aimed for a sample of texts that was expected to vary
on (perceived) originality, the texts’ TF-IDF scores were used as an initial proxy of originality.
TF-IDF, short for Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency, is a measure often used in
information retrieval and text mining (e.g., [54]), which calculates how often each word in a
text appears compared to the frequency of this word in other texts in the sample. For each
word in a profile text, a TF-IDF score was calculated, and the average of all the word scores of
a text was that text’s TF-IDF score. Texts with high average TF-IDF scores thus included rela-
tively many words not found in other texts, and were expected to score higher on perceived
profile text originality, whereas the opposite was expected for texts with a lower average
TF-IDF score. Looking at the (un)usualness of word use is a commonly used approach to indi-
cate a text’s originality (e.g., [9,47]), and TF-IDF seemed a suitable initial proxy of text origi-
nality. The profiles in Fig 1 illustrate the difference between texts with a high TF-IDF score
(original Dutch version that was part of the experimental material in (a), and the version trans-
lated in English in (b)) and those with a lower TF-IDF score (c, translated in d).
The TF-IDF score distribution corroborated the initial impression that only few texts were
original in their word use, which is illustrated in Fig 2. All 31,163 texts were therefore divided
into seven bins, based on the percentiles of the TF-IDF score. This was done for both texts that
were written by people who indicated to be men (n= 17,869) and for those who indicated to
be women (n= 13,294), as participants in the perception study saw profiles written by people
of their sexual preference. The seventh bin–containing the texts with the highest TF-IDF
scores–contained all texts falling in the range until the 40% percentile of TF-IDF scores. Each
of the other bins contained all texts within the next 10
th
percentile. To illustrate this for the
texts written by men: the highest TF-IDF score was 11.19 and the lowest score 2.15, which
means that for texts of men the TF-IDF scores in a bin differed 0.90 (11.19–2.15/10). As such,
all texts that scored between 2.15 and 3.06 were part of the first bin (the lowest score plus 0.90),
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 6 / 22
and those scoring between 3.06 and 3.96 were part of the second bin (3.05 plus 0.90), and so
on. Table 1 below provides for the profiles in each of the bins the lowest and highest TF-IDF
score, the percentile score, and the number of profiles included.
To end up with a total of approximately 300 profile texts, 22 texts were randomly selected
from each of the seven bins, resulting in a total of 154 texts written by men and 154 by women,
that is, 308 texts altogether.
All texts were accompanied by a different blurred profile picture, which was a picture of a
person with the same sex as the text’s writer. The texts and pictures were then combined into
one dating profile. The layout of the profiles is exemplified in Fig 1. Since the texts we used for
our materials included parts of authentic profile texts, the profiles that we have used in this
study are only available upon request.
Fig 1. Examples of the original Dutch dating profiles used for the experiment (a, c) and their translated English
versions (b, d). Profiles (a) and (b) are male profiles with a high TF-IDF score (bin seven), and (c) and (d) are female
profiles with a low TF-IDF score (bin one).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860.g001
Fig 2. Distribution of the TF-IDF scores of all 31,163 profile texts in the sample.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860.g002
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 7 / 22
Procedure. The perception study was conducted online and took approximately ten min-
utes to complete. First, participants were welcomed and informed about the procedure of the
experiment. After participants provided written informed consent in the online survey itself,
the experiment started by answering a few demographic questions (e.g., gender, age). Based on
their indicated sexual preference, participants were then presented with five profiles that were
randomly chosen from the selection of 154 profile texts written by men or women. Since par-
ticipants were informed that they could end the experiment at any time, not all participants
evaluated five profiles. Participants saw one profile at a time; after each profile, participants
assessed the originality of the profile and were asked about perceptions of the personality
(intelligence, sense of humor, oddness) and attractiveness (physical, social, romantic attrac-
tiveness) of the profile owner. Before the next profile was presented, participants answered
with a yes/no question whether they would like to go on a date with the profile owner. Finally,
the participants who ran through the entire experiment were thanked, debriefed, and allowed
to leave comments, and were then redirected to the contact form of the dating site which they
could fill in if they had interest in participating in a raffle for a three-months free membership.
This raffle was carried out by the dating sites.
Measures. Except for intention to date, all variables in this study were measured on a
Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Intention to date was mea-
sured using one binary yes/no question: “I would like to go on a date with this person”. The
study’s independent variable was perceived profile text originality, which was measured with
the item “This profile text seems original to me”. All other items were predominantly derived
from existing scales, with the wording translated and slightly adjusted to fit our experiment.
Each of the three mediation variables of this study was measured by two items. Perceived
intelligence was measured with the items “I think this person is smart/intelligent” (based on
[55]; Pearson’s r= .83), perceived sense of humor with the items “I think this person has
humor/is funny” (following [56]; Pearson’s r= .82), and perceived oddness was measured with
the items “I think this person is odd/peculiar” (following [39,40]; Pearson’s r= .77).
The outcome variables of attractiveness were measured with three items, each covering
another dimension of perceived attractiveness: physical attractiveness (“I think this person is
good-looking”), social attractiveness (“I think this person is kind”; [57]), and romantic attrac-
tiveness (“I could fall for this person”; [58]).
Statistical analysis. All participants who rated at least one dating profile from the full set
of 308 profiles were included in the dataset, with a maximum of five profiles (M= 2.95,
Table 1. Distribution of texts written by men and women in seven bins based on percentiles of the TF-IDF scores.
Profile texts written by men Profile texts written by women
Bin Percentile Lowest TF-IDF score Highest TF-IDF score nLowest TF-IDF score Highest TF-
IDF score
n
1 0 to 10th 2.151 3.055 665 2.053 2.789 213
2 10th to 20th 3.055 3.958 4,125 2.789 3.525 1,271
3 20th to 30th 3.958 4.862 9,341 3.525 4.260 4,657
4 30th to 40th 4.862 5.765 3,225 4.260 4.996 5,479
5 40th to 50th 5.765 6.669 409 4.996 5.732 1,400
6 50th to 60th 6.669 7.572 72 5.732 6.468 203
7 60th to 100st 7.572 11.186 665 6.468 9.412 71
Total 17,869 13,294
Note.nindicates the number of profile texts included in the bin in that percentile.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860.t001
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 8 / 22
SD = 1.50). In total, 775 participants (62.8%) viewed and assessed the maximum of five pro-
files. Seven participants who did not want to indicate their sexual preference, were presented
with a total of ten profiles of which five were from men and five from women. This together
resulted in 4289 individual profile assessments. The 308 texts differed in the number of times
they were rated, ranging between 7 and 20 ratings per text (M= 14.10, SD = 2.56). With the
irrNA package in R [59], intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC; 1,k) were calculated for all
eight impression formation variables, providing an indication of the internal consistency of
the scores given to the different texts by the different participants. All ICC’s were between .66
and .85 (ICC
mean
= .80; see file ICC Scores on OSF for further details), indicating a good reli-
ability between scores given by participants [60]. Consequently, data was aggregated on text
level and mean scores were calculated for each of the variables. For dating intention, which
was measured with a dichotomous yes/no question, the text mean score ranged between 0 and
1, with higher scores indicating more willingness to date the profile owner.
To test the mediation hypotheses, we used model 4 of the PROCESS v3.1 macro in SPSS
[61] with a bootstrapping approach with 10,000 samples and 95% Monte Carlo confidence
intervals. The independent variable was the perceived profile text originality score. Perceived
physical, social and romantic attractiveness and dating intention were the dependent variables,
and perceived intelligence, sense of humor, and oddness the mediating variables. The data
underlying this article are available on OSF, at: https://osf.io/yns83/.
Results
Before conducting mediation analyses, a multivariate regression model revealed that perceived
text originality significantly predicted all seven mediating and outcome variables, F(7, 300) =
87.41, p<.001, η
p2
= .671. Table 2 provides all mean scores, standard deviations, and correla-
tion scores of perceived text originality scores and the mediating and outcomes variables. To
check on potential differences in the assessments between the members of 50PlusMatch and
Pepper, we also run analyses of the 50PlusMatch and Pepper participants separately. As similar
results were found, the results reported are those with the participant group as a whole. More-
over, results of the mediation analyses were similar when word count was included as a control
variable, hence the results without word count as control variable are presented.
Hypothesis 1 proposed that perceived profile text originality increases perceptions of profile
owners’ intelligence which, in turn, positively affect perceptions of profile owners’ attractive-
ness and dating intention. Results indicated that perceived text originality was indeed a signifi-
cant predictor of perceived intelligence: owners of profile texts that scored higher on
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among perceived text originality scores and all impression formation variables.
Variable Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Text originality 3.69 (0.91)
2. Intelligence 3.93 (0.69) .74
3. Humor 3.83 (0.56) .73.64
4. Oddness 3.59 (0.64) -.30-.33-.31
5. Physical attractiveness 3.79 (0.41) .51.61.59-.30
6. Social attractiveness 4.25 (0.51) .60.61.68-.59.63
7. Romantic attractiveness 3.32 (0.82) 61.66.65-.61.63.77
8. Intention to date 0.30 (0.20) .60.62.58-.52.56.67.83
Note.p<.01. All variables were measured on a seven-point Likert scale, except for ‘intention to date’ which was measured using a dichotomous yes (1)/no (0)
question.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860.t002
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 9 / 22
originality also received higher scores on perceived intelligence, b= 0.56, SE = 0.03, p<.001,
CI: 0.50, 0.61. Perceived intelligence was a significant predictor of physical, b= 0.24, SE = 0.04,
p<.001, CI: 0.16, 0.32, social, b= 0.13, SE = 0.04, p= .001, CI: 0.05, 0.20, and romantic attrac-
tiveness, b= 0.35, SE = 0.06, p<.001, CI: 0.23, 0.47. In addition, participants were more will-
ing to date profile owners they perceived to be intelligent, b= 0.08, SE = 0.02, p<.001, CI:
0.04, 011. The data thus confirm H1.
The second hypothesis stated that perceived profile text originality positively affects attrac-
tiveness perceptions and dating intention through higher humor perceptions. As hypothe-
sized, higher scores on perceived profile text originality significantly predicted higher scores
on humor perceptions, b= 0.45, SE = 0.02, p<.001, CI: 0.40, 0.50. Perceived humor was, in
turn, a significant predictor of physical, b= 0.27, SE = 0.05, p<.001, CI: 0.18, 0.37, social,
b= 0.38, SE = 0.05, p<.001, CI: 0.29, 0.47, and romantic attractiveness, b= 0.46, SE = 0.07, p
<.001, CI: 0.31, 0.60, as well as of dating intentions, b= 0.06, SE = 0.02, p= .003, CI: 0.02,
0.10. H2 is thus supported.
Hypothesis 3 posed that perceived profile text originality negatively impacts attractiveness
and dating intentions through increased oddness perceptions. In contrast with H3, higher pro-
file text originality scores led to lower scores on perceptions of profile owners’ oddness, b=
-0.21, SE = 0.04, p<.001, CI: -0.28, -0.13. Higher perceptions of oddness did have a negative
effect on perceptions of social attractiveness, b= -0.31, SE = 0.03, p<.001, CI: -0.37, -0.26,
romantic attractiveness, b= -0.52, SE = 0.05, p<.001, CI: -0.61, -0.43, and dating intention, b
= -0.10, SE = 0.01, p<.001, CI: -0.08, -0.13, but not on physical attractiveness, b= -0.05,
SE = 0.03, p= .087, CI: -0.11, 0.01. H3 is thus not supported by the data: higher scores on per-
ceived oddness negatively affect perceived attractiveness and dating intention, but profile own-
ers whose text scored higher on text originality scored lower on oddness. Fig 2 shows the
results of the mediation analyses for all four outcome variables.
After controlling for the mediators, perceived text originality is no longer a significant pre-
dictor of all three attractiveness dimensions, indicating full mediation (physical: b= -0.04,
SE = 0.03, p= .268, CI: -0.10, 0.03, social: b= 0.03, SE = 0.03, p= .385, CI: -0.04, 0.09, romantic:
b= 0.03, SE = 0.05, p= .500, CI: -0.07, 0.13). This indicates that perceived profile text original-
ity only affects the attractiveness variables through the three mediating variables. The media-
tors partially mediate the effect of perceived profile text originality on dating intention, as the
direct effect is still significant after controlling for the mediators, b= 0.04, SE = 0.01, p= .007,
CI: 0.01, 0.07. Thus, text originality affects dating intentions through increased perceptions of
intelligence and sense of humor and decreased perceptions of oddness. However, originality
also directly affects dating intentions, implying that other factors might further explain this
relationship Fig 3.
Discussion
The perception study confirmed our hypothesis that perceived profile text originality affects
impression formation. Owners of profiles scoring higher on text originality were evaluated as
more intelligent and humorous and, in turn, as more attractive, supporting H1 and H2. How-
ever, in contrast to our expectations, higher text originality scores negatively affected percep-
tions of profile owner’s oddness. H3 was not supported: Higher scores on perceived oddness
had a negative impact on attractiveness, but owners of more original profiles were not seen as
more, but as less, odd.
These data showed that, overall, perceptions of profile text originality positively affect
impressions of the profile owner’s personality and attractiveness. However, these results do
not show which specific features of the profile text affect perceptions of originality. Therefore,
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 10 / 22
we now turn to a content analysis to identify which profile text characteristics increase percep-
tions of originality.
Content analysis: Textual characteristics of profiles perceived as
original
Method
In this section, we describe the two stages of the coding procedure that were undertaken in
this exploratory analysis to answer the research question on the textual characteristics that pre-
dict the perceived originality of online dating profile texts. This section first reports on the
qualitative analyses we did to compile a codebook consisting of several main categories that
were captured by different features, followed by a more detailed description of the content
analysis stage in which all 308 profiles were coded on the 15 features of the codebook. The
entire codebook can be found in the Online Supplementary Materials and on OSF.
Qualitative analysis. In the first stage of the coding procedure, we conducted a qualitative
analysis of a subselection of 60 of the 308 profile texts, differing in received originality scores:
the 20 texts that scored highest on perceived profile text originality (range: 5.69–5.00;
M= 5.29, SD = 0.21), those 20 that scored lowest (range: 2.27–1.25; M= 1.88, SD = 0.30), and
the 20 texts that scored closest to the mean originality score of 3.69 (range: 3.75–3.63,
SD = 0.91).
These 60 texts were all coded on several features of the three main categories of text charac-
teristics that we distinguished in the codebook: stylistic features, self-disclosure, and perspec-
tive-taking. To develop the codebook, we relied on bottom-up and top-down coding. This
means that the main categories and features we developed were both driven by literature and
the data. The form-related features, such as the use of metaphors and concrete language as
indicators of expressive and vivid language use, were in particular prompted by prior literature
(e.g., [28,50,51]). The data-driven features were identified based on patterns and themes
among texts within a group, or differences between the three groups of texts. These features
seemed to be more concerned with the profiles’ content, for which we could not rely on exist-
ing literature about dating profile originality, as literature is scarce on this topic. Examples of
such features in the codebook are the number of self-disclosure statements (main category:
Fig 3. Results of the four mediation analyses displaying that the effect of perceived profile text originality on (a)
physical attractiveness is mediated by perceived intelligence and humor, and that the effect of profile text originality is
mediated by perceived intelligence, humor, and oddness for (b) social attractiveness, (c) romantic attractiveness, and
(d) dating intention, but for oddness in the opposite direction than hypothesized. The coefficients represent the
unstandardized coefficients. Note. p<.001, p<.01. All variables were measured on a seven-point Likert scale,
except for ‘intention to date’ which was measured using a dichotomous yes (1)/no (0) question.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860.g003
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 11 / 22
self-disclosure) or the perspective from which the profile text was written (main category: pro-
file perspective). The resulting three main categories and features included in the final code-
book are explained in more detail below.
First, texts that scored higher on perceived originality more often seemed to contain stylistic
characteristics such as vivid descriptions and imagery than those who scored lower on per-
ceived originality. As opposed to those less original texts, original texts seem to be more likely
to contain metaphorical expressions (e.g., “I am a very good cook” vs. “I am a star in the
kitchen”), and particularly novel metaphors (e.g., “I don’t like growers of crops situated
between nose and neck”). In addition, original profile texts seem to include more low-frequent
words, adjectives, and adverbs than less original texts, which are other features that can evoke
imagery. These five stylistic features are thus included in the codebook as features potentially
predicting perceived profile text originality.
Second, the qualitative analysis suggested that texts scoring higher on perceived originality
contain more self-disclosure statements than texts scoring lower on perceived originality. In
our preliminary analysis, we saw that self-disclosure was presented in several ways. First, origi-
nal texts seemed to contain more self-disclosure (e.g., “I’m a 50-year old man” vs. “I’m a loyal
50-year old man with a high sense of humor”) and more intimate self-disclosure statements
(e.g., “I often go to the gym” vs. “In my life, sharing is the keyword”). Moreover, self-disclosure
statements in profiles deemed more original also appeared to be more concrete compared to
less original profiles, which means revealing personal information that activates detailed
(image-based) representations of objects or events [62] (e.g., “Food is essential for me” vs.
“Coffee and a cracker with cheese or jam are essential in my morning ritual”). As additional
features of self-disclosure, we decided to take into account the number of words and the per-
centage of I-references, which are also associated with self-disclosure [63,64], as well as article
use, which is seen as another measure of language concreteness [65]. A total of six self-disclo-
sure features is thus added to the codebook.
Third, profiles scoring high on perceived originality seemed to be less self- and more other-
focused. First, some original texts were partially or completely written from another perspec-
tive: these profile owners also used another person’s perspective or another person’s quotes to
present themselves (see Fig 1A and 1C for an example). Second, we noticed that original texts
seemed to contain more information about the kind of relationship (partner) the profile
owner was looking for (e.g., “Looking for an intelligent man with a sense of humor”). More-
over, we took into account the percentage of question marks and you-references as these can
be indicators of the profile writer’s attention being directed to the potential partner and not
just the self [64]. These four perspective-taking features are therefore included in the
codebook.
Content analysis. In the second stage, all 308 texts, including the 60 texts analyzed in the
initial phase, were coded on all features defined in the codebook, of which seven were coded
manually and eight automatically. For the manually-coded features, two judges who were
blind to the profile text originality score coded a random subset of texts (n= 30). We used the
Kappa statistic to calculate the intercoder reliability and used the benchmark of Landis and
Koch [66] to determine strength of agreement. One coder then went on to individually code
the remaining profiles. Manual coding happened on two levels: profile perspective was coded
on the level of the profile text, but since multiple stylistic and self-disclosure features could
occur within a text–and even a single sentence–these features were coded at clause level. A
clause was identified as the smallest unit in a sentence that was interpretable on its own. Parts
of enumerations and elliptical expressions (e.g., “philosopher, adventurous”, “no standard
man”) were considered as separate clauses. Profile texts consisted on average of 7.3 clauses
(SD = 5.9). Clauses that were (part of) quotations of others (n= 16 texts with (only) citations)
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 12 / 22
were not coded on stylistic and self-disclosure features (e.g., John Weir’s quote “Love myself I
do. Not everything, but I love the good as well as the bad”). For automatic coding, we used the
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program (LIWC) [67] and T-Scan, a software tool for ana-
lyzing Dutch texts [68].
Stylistic features. Of the five stylistic features, two were manually coded: presence of (1)
fixed (e.g., “I have my life back on track”) and (2) novel metaphors (e.g., “Looking for a Don
Juan who can make me weak at the knees”) (κ’s of .80 and .87, respectively). Fixed and novel
metaphors were included as a binary variable (0 = absent, 1 = present) because the relatively
short profiles resulted in little variation in the number of occurrences. Proportions of adjectives,
adverbs, and low-frequent words were automatically coded, with low-frequent words defined as
the proportion of words not part of the 20,000 most frequent words of the Dutch, derived from
the SoNaR corpus [69]. Because the TF-IDF score signals variation in the words used in a text
compared to the other texts, TF-IDF score was also taken into account as a stylistic feature.
Self-disclosure features. Three of the six self-disclosure features were coded manually. Each
clause in which a profile owner reveals personal information was coded as a self-disclosing
clause, and each self-disclosure clause was manually coded on three features. First, within one
clause, the total number of self-disclosing expressions were counted, which involved only
information about the profile owner him- or herself (e.g., underlined words indicate the four
self-disclosing statements in “I’m a loyal 50-year old man with a high sense of humor”) and
not the type of relationship (partner) the profile owner was looking for (e.g., “My future part-
ner should be funny and smart”).
Second, the intimacy of the self-disclosed information was coded (κ= .76). To do this, we
followed the classification scheme of Altman and Taylor [70] adapted by Sharabi and col-
leagues [71] for dating contexts. Each self-disclosure clause was coded as containing either bio-
graphical (low intimate; e.g., name, age), evaluative (medium intimate; e.g., personality traits,
hobbies), or normative/moral personal information (high intimate; e.g., norms and values,
confessions). All self-disclosing statements and intimacy scores (1, 2, 3) in self-disclosing
clauses of a text were summed to calculate the total number of self-disclosing statements and
the overall intimacy score of a text.
The third feature within this category was the concreteness of self-disclosed information (κ
= .81). To be identified as concrete, information in a profile should evoke clear imagery. For
instance, by describing an assignable location (e.g., “A road trip across Australia is on my
bucket list”), product (e.g., “My favorite book is Harry Potter”), activity (“I prefer mountain
biking to Nordic walking”), period or moment (e.g., “I got divorced in 1999”). This could also
involve information that specifies information in other (generic) self-disclosing clauses, such
as the second clause on sushi in “I love cooking. Home-made sushi is my specialty”, which fur-
ther specifies the information disclosed about the profile owner’s love to cook. Concreteness
was eventually included as a binary variable (absent or present) because of the low number of
occurrences within texts.
The remaining three features related to self-disclosure were coded using LIWC, which were
the number of words, and the percentage of I-references and articles in the profiles.
Perspective-taking features. First, profile perspective was coded on profile text level. Self-per-
spective profiles were those profiles that were (fully) written from the profile owner’s own per-
spective (e.g., “I am a man who hopes to find a friendly woman”; see also Fig 1C and 1D),
while profiles that were not (fully) written from the self- but also from another perspective
were coded as no self-perspective (see also Fig 1A and 1B; all κ’s >.63). For instance, profiles
that were written from a 3
rd
person perspective (“This man hopes to find a friendly woman”).
Second, we coded the number of clauses that included information about the kind of relation-
ship (partner) a profile owner seeks (κ= .87), but given the low frequency in which this
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 13 / 22
occurred, we eventually included this feature as a binary variable (absent or present). The per-
centage of question marks and you-references were automatically calculated using LIWC.
Results
All mean scores, standard deviations, and correlation scores of text originality scores and all 15
included features are provided in Table 3. We found that profiles were more likely to include
(at least) one fixed metaphor (n= 132; 42.9%) than a novel metaphor (n= 95; 30.8%). The per-
centage of low-frequent words (85.4%, indicating the high percentage of high-frequent words),
adjectives (12.2%), and adverbs (6.02%) in the profiles was relatively low. Results of the self-
disclosure features showed that profiles included 53.9 words on average, in which profile own-
ers expressed on average 9.17 self-disclosing statements. In somewhat more than half of the
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among text originality scores and all coded features.
Category Feature Mean
(SD)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. perceived text
originality
4.44
(0.91)
Stylistic features 2. TF-IDF 5.05
(1.78)
.21
3. fixed metaphors
a
42.9
(49.6)
.24 -.07
4. novel metaphors
2
30.8
(46.2)
.29 .18 .06
5. low-frequent
words
b
85.4
(18.4)
.01 -.77 .13-.03
6. adjectives
b
12.2
(9.16)
.11 -.03 .20 .09 .08
7. adverbs
b
6.02
(5.11)
.20 -.06 .11 .11 .28 -.01
Self-disclosure
features
8. number of words 53.9
(26.8)
.56 .37 .19 .28 -.01 -.09 .31
9. number of self-
disclosures
9.17
(8.16)
.45 .27 .19 .16 -.07 .31 .13.47
10. concrete self-
disclosure
a
52.3
(50.0)
.42 .21 .09 .13-.07 -.03 .15 .46 .48
11. article use
c
6.88
(4.95)
.04 -.37 -.05 .08 .47 -.20 -.01 -.04 -.21 -.06
12. I-references
c
5.81
(4.28)
-.11 -.49 -.03 -.17.46 -.13-.02 .01 -.10 -.10 .04
Perspective-taking
features
13. no self-
perspective
a
21.0
(41.1)
.03 .48 -.09 -.04 -.42 .16 -.08 -.10 -.03 .01 -.20 -.50
14. looking-for
clauses
a
50.3
(50.1)
.09 -.34 -.01 -.03 .17 -.03 -.08 .13-.33 -.16 .15.05 -.10
15. you-references
b
1.35
(2.13)
-.02 -.16 -.08 -.02 -.18 -.10 -.08 -.06 -.13-.13-.12.23 -.12-.07
16. question marks
b
0.48
(1.38)
.01 -.01 .10 -.06 -.01 -.09 .03 -.04 -.08 .02 .01 .01 .00 -.001 .10
Note.
a
Features measured on a binary scale (0 = absence of the feature; 1 = presence of the feature).
b, c
Features presenting proportion (
b
) or percentage (
c
) scores:
Number of words in that category divided by total number of words in text (for percentage scores multiplied by 100).
a, b, c
are all presented as percentages scores in the mean and SD column.
indicates p<.05 and
p<.01.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860.t003
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 14 / 22
profiles, concrete self-disclosing information was provided (n= 161; 52.3%). In addition, the
percentage of articles and I-references in the profiles was 6.88 and 5.81, respectively. A large
majority of profiles were fully written from the profile owner’s own perspective (n= 242;
78.6%), and in almost half of the profiles no information was revealed about the type of rela-
tionship (partner) the profile owner sought for (n= 153; 49.7%). On average, the percentages
of you-references and question marks were 1.35 and 0.48.
Regression analysis. The hierarchical multiple regression analysis that was performed
next included all coded features as predictor variables. The dependent variable was the per-
ceived originality score assigned to all 308 texts by participants in the perception study. Table 4
presents the results of this regression analysis. As the number of self-disclosures and self-dis-
closure intimacy were highly correlated (.83), this led to multicollinearity issues in our analysis.
Therefore, only the total number of self-disclosure statements was included. The stylistic fea-
tures were entered in the regression first, F(6, 301) = 13.78, p<.001, R
2
= .215. Fixed meta-
phors, novel metaphors, TF-IDF, and low-frequent words all made a significant contribution
to this first model (with all β’s .20 and .41, p’s .002) and these stylistic features
accounted for 21.5% of the variation in originality scores. The self-disclosure features
explained an additional 20.9% of the variance, F(5, 296) = 21.52, p<.001, R
2
= .209. Except for
the use of I-references, all self-disclosure features contributed significantly to the model (with
all β’s .13 and .41, p’s .023). Finally, the addition of the perspective-taking features did
not add significantly to the model, F(4, 292) = 1.80, p= .128, R
2
= .014.
Table 4. Summary of Hierarchical regression analysis for text features predicting perceived profile text originality.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Category Features B SE B βBSE B βBSE B β
Stylistic features TF-IDF 0.21 0.04 .41 -0.05 0.05 -.11 -0.08 0.05 -.16
fixed metaphors
a
0.36 0.10 .20 0.18 0.09 .100.19 0.09 .10
novel metaphors
a
0.38 0.10 .20 0.20 0.09 .100.23 0.09 .12
low-frequent words
b
1.36 0.43 .28 -0.52 0.45 -.11-0.66 0.46 -.13
adjectives
b
0.43 0.52 .04 1.04 0.53 .10 0.89 0.54 .09
adverbs
b
1.92 0.99 .11 0.59 0.91 .03 0.64 0.91 .04
Self-disclosure features number of words 0.01 0.00 .41 0.01 0.00 .42
number of self-disclosures 0.02 0.01 .150.02 0.01 .19
concrete self-disclosure
a
0.30 0.10 .17 0.31 0.10 .17
article
c
0.02 0.01 .130.03 0.01 .16
I-references
c
-0.01 0.01 -.06 .000 0.01 -.01
Perspective-taking features no self-perspective
a
0.29 0.13 .13
looking-for clauses
a
0.04 0.09 -.02
you-references
c
0.02 0.02 .06
question marks
c
0.02 0.03 .03
R
2
.215 .425 .438
Adjusted R
2
.200 .403 .410
ΔR
2
.215 .209 .014
Note.
a
Features measured on a binary scale (0 = absence of the feature; 1 = presence of the feature).
b, c
Features presenting proportion
(
b
) or percentage
(
c
) scores: Number of words in that category divided by total number of words in text (for percentage scores multiplied by 100).
indicates p.05
p<.01
p<.001.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860.t004
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 15 / 22
As shown in Table 4, the final model with all 308 profiles and all features included reveals
seven features significantly predicted perceived profile text originality; number of words was
the strongest predictor, followed by the number of self-disclosing statements, the presence of
concrete self-disclosure, the use of articles, and then the presence of: no self-perspective, novel
metaphors, and fixed metaphors. Together the features explained 43.8% of the variance in text
originality scores.
Moreover, we have run a similar regression without the results of the 60 profiles that were
used in the qualitative analysis phase to construct the codebook. The results of the regression
with only the 248 profiles are comparable: adding stylistic features first accounted for 19.3% of
the variance in originality, F(6, 241) = 9.59, p<.001, R
2
= .193, followed by the self-disclosure
features that explained an additional 17.3%, F(5, 236) = 12.89, p<.001, R
2
= .173. Similar to
the results with all profiles included, the perspective-taking features did not contribute signifi-
cantly to the model, F(4, 232) = 1.18, p= .321, R
2
= .013.
Discussion
The goal of the content analysis was to gain insights into what profile text characteristics could
foster positive perceptions of profile text originality. To do so, all texts were coded on a num-
ber of textual features that were determined based on an initial content analysis and could be
predictors of perceived profile text originality. Each feature fits one of the three text feature cat-
egories we distinguished, that is, stylistic features, self-disclosure statements, or perspective-
taking features. We then ran regression analyses to identify which features predict perceptions
of text originality, as scored by the participants in the perception study.
Our results reveal that primarily the stylistic and self-disclosure features were correlated
positively with perceived text originality scores and explained most of the variance in original-
ity scores. With regard to stylistic features, our findings show that profiles that score higher on
perceived profile text originality are more likely to contain one or more fixed or novel meta-
phors. Considering self-disclosure, we found that both features that looked at the quantity (i.e.,
total number of words and total number of self-disclosing statements) as well as quality of the
self-disclosure (i.e., the occurrence of concrete self-disclosure and article use) predicted text
originality scores. Although the profile perspective was found to be a significant predictor of
text originality, the perspective-taking features did overall not contribute to the model.
General discussion
As far as we are aware, this is the first study that has focused on perceived originality in online
dating profiles. In the perception study, we first investigated the effects of perceived profile text
originality on impression formation. This was done by presenting actual users of web-based
dating sites with dating profiles which they evaluated on the profile’s originality and the profile
owner’s personality and attractiveness. Next, we conducted a content analysis to explore what
characteristics in a dating profile text increase perceptions of profile text originality.
Results of the perception study show that higher scores on perceived intelligence and sense of
humor mediate the positive relationship between perceived profile text originality and impres-
sions of attractiveness and dating intention (H1 and H2). This positive correlation of perceived
originality, intelligence, sense of humor, and attractiveness accords with correlations found in
prior studies [26–28]. Contrary to the expectations in H3, we found that higher originality scores
lead to lower rather than higher oddness scores. In line with our expectation, profile owners scor-
ing higher on perceived oddness scored lower on attractiveness and dating intention.
The perception study data showed thus that, overall, perceptions of profile text originality
positively affect impressions of the profile owner’s personality and attractiveness, but the
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 16 / 22
content analysis provides insights into what profile text characteristics could increase these
text originality perceptions. Our results reveal that primarily stylistic and self-disclosure fea-
tures predicted higher text originality scores. It seems that profiles that were perceived as more
original were more likely to contain fixed and novel metaphors (stylistic features), and more
and concrete self-disclosures (self-disclosure features). Finally, profiles deemed original were
less likely to be (fully) written from a self-perspective (perspective-taking feature).
Implications and directions for future research
This study yields several implications for theory and future studies on (the effects of) original-
ity. First, our study reveals that a general consensus exists among the online dating site users of
this study about what profile texts are original and not. Moreover, the participants showed
high agreement on the owners of which profiles were considered odd, and these profiles scored
low on originality. Consistent with the two-dimensional concept of creativity [12], this finding
suggests that, without being instructed to do so, online daters apply novelty and appropriate-
ness criteria to assess a profile’s originality; only profiles that are both novel and appropriate
are considered original, profiles that are just novel are not. This raises the question where to
draw the line between profiles that are novel but not appropriate, profiles that are appropriate
but not novel, and profiles that are both novel and appropriate. A future study could investi-
gate this by asking participants to evaluate the perceived novelty and appropriateness of a large
set of texts instead of the text’s overall perceived originality.
Second, the results of the perception study show that online daters use profile originality as
a cue to form impressions about profile owners. More specifically, it seems that a profile’s orig-
inality primarily leads to positive impressions, both with regard to perceptions about the pro-
file owner’s personality (higher scores on intelligence and sense of humor), and the profile
owner’s attractiveness and participants’ dating intentions. This positive effect of originality on
impression formation is further corroborated by the finding that perceived originality did not
lead to higher scores on perceptions of the less desired trait oddness. Originality may thus be
seen as a positive characteristic of a dating profile, which accords with previous interview stud-
ies in which online daters expressed negative attitudes towards dating profiles lacking original-
ity [16,17]. However, as the participants of the present study were older adults who are
members of dating platforms on which the textual component on a dating profile plays a
prominent role, these results need to be corroborated among younger samples as younger
adults are often more inclined to use dating applications with more picture-based dating pro-
files. It would be interesting to investigate how different dating demographics define and
appreciate originality in dating profile texts.
Third, the results of the exploratory content analysis suggest that originality is a multiface-
ted construct in online dating: perceptions of text originality are affected by choices of form
(stylistic features) as well as meaning (self-disclosure statements). This suggests that in addi-
tion to a multidimensional construct (i.e., novel and appropriate), originality is manifested
through both meaning and form characteristics in dating profiles. Future research should
examine how the criteria of novelty and appropriateness on the one hand, and meaning and
form on the other hand, relate to each other. For example, stylistic features may be form char-
acteristics that can boost a profile’s novelty, while self-disclosure features may be meaning
characteristics that are added to satisfy appropriateness criteria. The latter assumption builds
upon an earlier study that suggested that online daters reveal personal information to conform
with contextual expectations [24].
Our findings may well extend to other text genres, such as job application letters or con-
sumer-to-consumer advertisements. There, text originality may also be a balancing act
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 17 / 22
between novelty and appropriateness. Moreover, it is also likely that in these and other texts,
originality is not only defined by form, but also by certain meaning characteristics that are spe-
cific to the context. For example, a consumer-to-consumer advertisement should not only be
original in form, but should perhaps also always contain specific product information in order
to be perceived as original. Whether these assumptions hold in other contexts though, is up for
future studies.
Fourth, this study has shown that it is possible to assess perceived text originality from
authentic profile texts based on content analytical features. Our methodological approach
offers opportunities for other research aiming to investigate what constitutes originality in
texts and how perceived originality affects evaluations. With the features coded in this study,
we were able to explain nearly half of the variation in perceived profile text originality scores,
and particularly the manually-coded features were important in this. A next challenge would
be to examine whether automated measures of the manual-coded features of this study that
seemed to indicate perceived text originality, could be developed using natural language pro-
cessing (NLP) techniques, such as feature extraction and language modeling.
The use of authentic online dating profile texts is thus one of the study’s strengths. At the
same time, ethical issues can and should be taken into consideration when using authentic
texts. When conducting this study, we had obtained ethical approval of our local REDC, and
we made every effort to ensure that sentences and phrases used in our stimuli could not be
traced back to the original writers. Nevertheless, a debate has emerged in social sciences
recently (e.g., [72]): can people’s online texts be used for scientific analyses, even when these
texts are publicly available, if the writers of those texts are not aware of this? There is no simple
answer to this, and much depends on the specific online platform and the exact purpose of the
study. This is an important consideration for future studies looking into communicative prac-
tices in online communicative settings, ranging from BTL reader comments on news sites to
online dating.
Conclusion
To conclude, the results of this study accord well with the recommendations of dating sites to
write original profile texts: the originality of an online dating profile text is indeed used as a
cue for impression formation which has primarily positive effects. Owners of profiles that
score high on profile text originality tend to score higher on other positive dimensions, that is,
intelligence, sense of humor, and attractiveness, as well as on participants’ intentions to date
the profile owner. Given our results, there seem to be (at least) two ways to increase percep-
tions of profile text originality: by disclosing more and concrete personal information, and by
using stylistic features, such as (fixed and novel) metaphors. Altogether, our study highlights
the importance of perceived originality in online dating profile texts, which can be manifested
through both what information is provided and how this information is presented.
Supporting information
S1 File.
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Chris van der Lee for his effort put into writing the scripts
used to calculate the texts’ TF-IDF scores.
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 18 / 22
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Tess van der Zanden, Alexander P. Schouten, Maria B. J. Mos, Emiel J.
Krahmer.
Formal analysis: Tess van der Zanden, Alexander P. Schouten, Maria B. J. Mos.
Methodology: Tess van der Zanden, Alexander P. Schouten, Maria B. J. Mos, Emiel J.
Krahmer.
Supervision: Alexander P. Schouten, Maria B. J. Mos, Emiel J. Krahmer.
Writing – original draft: Tess van der Zanden.
Writing – review & editing: Alexander P. Schouten, Maria B. J. Mos, Emiel J. Krahmer.
References
1. Nettle D. The evolution of creative writing. In: Kaufman SB, Kaufman JC, editors. The Psychology of
Creative Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009. p. 101–116.
2. Wallace I, Wallace A, Wallechinsky D, Wallace S. The Intimate Sex Lives of Famous People. Port
Townsend: Feral House; 2008.
3. Lange BP, Euler HA. Writers have groupies, too: High quality literature production and mating success.
Evol Behav Sci. 2014; 8(1):20–30.
4. Nettle D, Clegg H. Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans. Proc Biol Sci. 2006; 273
(1586):611–615. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3349 PMID: 16537133
5. Sternberg RJ. A three-facet model of creativity. In: Sternberg RJ, editor. The nature of creativity: Con-
temporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge: CUP Archive; 1988. p. 125–147.
6. Jones RH. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity. New York: Routledge; 2015.
7. Parkhurst HB. Confusion, lack of consensus, and the definition of creativity as a construct. J Creat
Behav. 1999; 33(1):1–21.
8. Berger J, Packard G. Are atypical things more popular?. Psychol Sci. 2018; 29(7):1178–1184. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0956797618759465 PMID: 29671695
9. Form S. Reaching Wuthering Heights with Brave New Words: The Influence of Originality of Words on
the Success of Outstanding Best-Sellers. J Creat Behav. 2019; 53(4):508–518.
10. Simonton DK. Lexical choices and aesthetic success: A computer content analysis of 154 Shakespeare
sonnets. Comput Hum. 1990; 24(4):251–264.
11. Markowitz DM, Hancock JT, Tong ST. Interpersonal Dynamics in Online Dating: Profiles, Matching, and
Discovery. In Papacharissi Z, editor. A Networked Self and Love. New York: Routledge; 2018. p. 50–
61.
12. Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI. The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In Sternberg RJ, editor.
Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. p. 3–15.
13. Tong ST, Corriero EF, Wibowo KA, Makki TW, Slatcher RB. Self-presentation and impressions of per-
sonality through text-based online dating profiles: A lens model analysis. New Media Soc.2020; 22
(5):875–895.
14. Finkel EJ, Eastwick PW, Karney BR, Reis HT, Sprecher S. Online dating: A critical analysis from the
perspective of psychological science. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2012; 13(1):3–66. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1529100612436522 PMID: 26173279
15. Ellison NB, Heino R, Gibbs J. Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online
dating environment. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2006; 11(2):415–441.
16. Masden C, Edwards WK. Understanding the role of community in online dating. Proceedings of the
33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2015 April 18–23; Seoul,
South-Korea. p. 535–544.
17. Whitty MT. Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you: presentations of self on an internet
dating site. Comput Human Behav. 2008; 24(4):1707–1723.
18. eHarmony. Online dating profile cliche
´s to avoid–and how to write an original profile [cited 2022 Feb
22]. Available from: https://www.eharmony.co.uk/dating-advice/start-with-you/online-dating-profile-
cliches-to-avoid-and-how-to-write-an-original-profile.
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 19 / 22
19. Wobcke W, Krzywicki A, Kim YS, Cai X, Bain M, Compton P, et al. A deployed people-to-people recom-
mender system in online dating. AI Mag. 2015; 36(3):5–18.
20. Coupland J. Dating advertisements: Discourses of the commodified self. Discourse Soc. 1996; 7
(2):187–207.
21. Ellison NB, Hancock JT, Toma CL. Profile as promise: A framework for conceptualizing veracity in
online dating self-presentations. New Media Soc. 2012; 14(1):45–62.
22. Kavroulaki E. “Congratulations! You just won the title for ‘worse Tinder opening line’”: Inappropriate
behaviour and impoliteness in online dating. J Lang Aggress Confl. 2022; 10(1):13–37.
23. Burgoon JK, Jones SB. Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their violations. Hum Com-
mun Res. 1976; 2(2):131–146.
24. Gibbs JL, Ellison NB, Lai CH. First comes love, then comes Google: An investigation of uncertainty
reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Commun Res. 2011; 38(1):70–100.
25. D’Angelo J, Van Der Heide B. The formation of physician impressions in online communities: Negativity,
positivity, and nonnormativity effects. Commun Res. 2016; 43(1):49–72.
26. Kaufman SB, Kozbelt A, Bromley ML, Miller GR. The role of creativity and humor in human mate selec-
tion. In Geher G, Miller G, editors. Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive
system. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher; 2008. p. 227–262.
27. Miller GF. The mating mind: how sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. New York: Dou-
bleday; 2000.
28. Gao Z, Yang Q, Ma X, Becker B, Li K, Zhou F, et al. Men who compliment a woman’s appearance using
metaphorical language: Associations with creativity, masculinity, intelligence and attractiveness. Front
Psychol. 2017; 8:2185. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02185 PMID: 29312054
29. Sternberg RJ. Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985; 49
(3):607–627.
30. Proyer RT, Brauer K. Exploring adult playfulness: Examining the accuracy of personality judgments at
zero-acquaintance and an LIWC analysis of textual information. J Res Pers. 2018; 73:12–20.
31. Kaufman SB, Kozbelt A. The tears of a clown: Understanding comedy writers. In Kaufman SB, Kaufman
JC, editors. The Psychology of Creative Writing Cambrige; Cambridge University Press: 2009. p. 80–
97.
32. Murdock MC, Ganim RM. Creativity and humor: Integration and incongruity. J Creat Behav. 1993; 27
(1):57–70.
33. Greengross G, Miller G. Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in
males. Intelligence. 2011; 39(4):188–192.
34. Li NP, Bailey JM, Kenrick DT, Linsenmeier JA. The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: test-
ing the tradeoffs. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002; 82(6);947–955. PMID: 12051582
35. Regan PC, Levin L, Sprecher S, Christopher FS, Gate R. Partner preferences: What characteristics do
men and women desire in their short-term sexual and long-term romantic partners? J Psychol Human
Sex. 2002; 12(3);1–21.
36. Van der Zanden T, Schouten AP, Mos MBJ, Krahmer EJ. Impression formation on online dating sites:
Effects of language errors in profile texts on perceptions of profile owners’ attractiveness. J Soc Pers
Relat. 2020; 37(3):758–778.
37. Wilbur CJ, Campbell L. Humor in romantic contexts: Do men participate and women evaluate?. Pers
Soc Psychol Bull. 2011; 37(7):918–929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211405343 PMID: 21521721
38. DiDonato TE, Bedminster MC, Machel JJ. My funny valentine: How humor styles affect romantic inter-
est. Pers Relatsh. 2013; 20(2):374–390.
39. Ashton MC, Lee K. Oddity, Schizotypy/Dissociation, and Personality. J Pers. 2012; 80(1):113–134.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00735.x PMID: 21446948
40. Simms LJ, Yufik T, Thomas JP, Simms EN. Exploring the nature of evaluative person descriptors
through scale development. J Res Pers. 2008; 42(5):1271–1284.
41. Runco MA. Parsimonious creativity and its measurement. Proceedings of the Conference “Can Creativ-
ity be Measured?”; 2009 May 28–29; Brussels, Belgium. p. 393–405.
42. Weeks DJ, Ward K. Eccentricity. In Runco MA M. A., Pritzker S, editors. Encyclopedia of Creativity.
San Diego: Academic Press; 1999. p. 613–621.
43. Zibarras LD, Port RL, Woods SA. Innovation and the ‘Dark Side’ of Personality: Dysfunctional Traits
and their Relation to Self-Reported Innovative Characteristics. J Creat Behav. 2008; 42(3):201–215.
44. Buss DM. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.
Behav Brain Sci. 1989; 12(1):1–14.
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 20 / 22
45. Buss DM, Barnes M. Preferences in human mate selection. J Per Soc Psychol. 1986; 50(3):559–570.
46. White J, Lorenz H, Perilloux C, Lee A. Creative casanovas: mating strategy predicts using—but not pre-
ferring—atypical flirting tactics. Evol Psychol Sci. 2018; 4:443–455.
47. Simonton DK. Shakespeare’s Sonnets: a case of and for single–case historiometry. J Pers. 1989; 57
(3):695–721.
48. De Saussure F. Course de linguistique ge
´ne
´rale. Paris: Payot; 1916.
49. Simonton DK. Popularity, content, and context in 37 Shakespeare plays. Poetics. 1986; 15(4–6):493–
510.
50. Simonton DK. The literary genius of William Shakespeare: Empirical studies of his dramatic and poetic
creativity. In Kaufman SB, Kaufman JC, editors. The Psychology of Creative Writing. Cambrige: Cam-
bridge University Press; 2009. p. 131–145.
51. Lindauer MS. Literary Creativity and Physiognomy: Expressiveness in Writers, Readers, and Literature.
In Kaufman SB, Kaufman JC, editors. The Psychology of Creative Writing. Cambrige: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press; 2009. p. 117–130.
52. LeBoutillier N, Marks DF. Mental imagery and creativity: A meta-analytic review study. Br J Psychol.
2003; 94(1):29–44. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603762842084 PMID: 12648387
53. Van der Zanden T, Mos MBJ, Schouten AP. [Language accommodation in online dating profiles: effects
of education level and type of dating site on language use]. Tijdschr. Taalbeheers. 2018; 40(1):83–106.
Dutch.
54. Salton G, Buckley C. Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. Inf Process Manag. 1988;
24(5):513–523.
55. Leach CW, Ellemers N, Barreto M. Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and
sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007; 93(2):234–249. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234 PMID: 17645397
56. Brand RJ, Bonatsos A, D’Orazio R, DeShong H. What is beautiful is good, even online: Correlations
between photo attractiveness and text attractiveness in men’s online dating profiles. Comput Human
Behav. 2012; 28(1):166–170.
57. McCroskey JC, McCain TA. The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monogr. 1974; 41
(3):261–266.
58. Campbell WK. Narcissism and romantic attraction. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999; 77(6):1254–1270.
59. Bru¨ckl M, Heuer F. Coefficients of Interrater Reliability—Generalized for Randomly Incomplete Data-
sets. R Package Version 0.1.4. 2018. Available at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/irrNA/index.
html
60. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability
research. J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15(2):155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 PMID:
27330520
61. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based
approach. London: Guilford Press; 2013.
62. West WC, Holcomb PJ. Imaginal, semantic, and surface-level processing of concrete and abstract
words: an electrophysiological investigation. J Cogn Neurosci. 2000; 12(6):1024–1037. https://doi.org/
10.1162/08989290051137558 PMID: 11177422
63. Gibbs JL, Ellison NB, Heino RD. Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future
interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Commun Res. 2006; 33(2):152–
177.
64. Van der Zanden T, Schouten AP, Mos MBJ, Van der Lee C, Krahmer EJ. Effects of relationship goal on
linguistic behavior in online dating profiles: A multi-method approach. Front Commun, 2019;4:22.
65. Tausczik YR, Pennebaker JW. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text anal-
ysis methods. J Lang Soc Psychol. 2010; 29(1):24–54.
66. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;
33(1):159–174. PMID: 843571
67. Pennebaker JW, Booth RJ, Boyd RL, Francis ME. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC 2015 [Com-
puter software]. Austin: Pennebaker Conglomerates; 2015.
68. Pander Maat H, Kraf R, Van den Bosch A, Dekker N, Van Gompel M, Kleijn S, et al. T-Scan: a new tool
for analyzing Dutch text. Comp Linguist Neth J. 2014; 4:53–74.
69. Oostdijk N, Reynaert M, Hoste V, Van den Heuvel H. SoNaR User Documentation, version 1.0. 4. 2013.
70. Altman I, Taylor DA. Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Oxford: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston; 1973.
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 21 / 22
71. Sharabi LL, Dykstra-DeVette TA. From first email to first date: Strategies for initiating relationships in
online dating. J Soc Pers Relat. 2019; 36(11–12):3389–3407.
72. Golder S, Ahmed S, Norman G, Booth A. Attitudes toward the ethics of research using social media: a
systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19(6):e195. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7082 PMID:
28588006
PLOS ONE
Perceveid originality in dating profiles
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274860 October 19, 2022 22 / 22
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
