Online dating meets artificial intelligence how the perception of algorithmically generated profile


Online Dating Meets Artificial Intelligence: How the Perception of Algorithmically Generated Profile Text Impacts Attractiveness and Trust


This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to: You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.


Online Dating Meets Artificial Intelligence: How the Perception of Algorithmically Generated Profile Text Impacts Attractiveness and Trust


This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to: You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below. Manage my Alerts

New Citation Alert!


Save to Binder


OzCHI '20: Proceedings of the 32nd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction


Online Dating Meets Artificial Intelligence: How the Perception of Algorithmically Generated Profile Text Impacts Attractiveness and Trust

Pages 444–453

ABSTRACT


Online dating systems are widely used to meet romantic partners, yet people often struggle to write attractive profiles on these applications. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to help online daters by automatically generating profile content, but little research has explored how the use of AI in online dating could affect users’ perceptions of one another. The present study investigated how the perceived involvement of AI influences ratings of attractiveness and trust in online dating. In a between-subjects experiment, participants (N = 48) were presented with the text of 10 dating profiles and were told that the profiles had been written by humans or with the help of AI. We found that the perceived involvement of AI did not have a significant impact on attractiveness, but that it did lead to a significant reduction in trustworthiness of the profile author. We interpret our findings through the lens of social information processing theory, discussing the tradeoffs associated with designing to reveal or hide the use of AI in online dating.


References


    
  
  1. ABC News 2019. Tinder date found guilty of murdering British backpacker Grace Millane in New Zealand. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-22/british-backpacker-grace-millane-man-found-guilty-murder/11730768 Google Scholar
    2. 
  
  2. Traci L Anderson. 2005. Relationships among Internet attitudes, Internet use, romantic beliefs, and perceptions of online romantic relationships. CyberPsychology & Behavior 8, 6 (2005), 521–531. Google ScholarCross Ref
    3. 
  
  3. Sabrina Barr. 2019. This is how Hinge’s algorithm matches you with compatible partners. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/hinge-dating-app-algorithm-compatible-partner-love-couple-relationship-valentines-day-a8771076.html. Google Scholar
    4. 
  
  4. W Keith Campbell. 1999. Narcissism and romantic attraction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77, 6(1999), 1254–1270. Google Scholar
    5. 
  
  5. James Carifio and Rocco Perla. 2008. Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Medical Education 42, 12 (2008), 1150–1152. Google ScholarCross Ref
    6. 
  
  6. Kelsey C Chappetta and Joan M Barth. 2016. How gender role stereotypes affect attraction in an online dating scenario. Computers in human behavior 63 (2016), 738–746. Google Scholar
    7. 
  
  7. Richard L Daft and Robert H Lengel. 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science 32, 5 (1986), 554–571. Google ScholarDigital Library
    8. 
  
  8. Nicole Ellison, Rebecca Heino, and Jennifer Gibbs. 2006. Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11, 2 (2006), 415–441. Google Scholar
    9. 
  
  9. Nicole B Ellison, Jeffrey T Hancock, and Catalina L Toma. 2012. Profile as promise: A framework for conceptualizing veracity in online dating self-presentations. New Media & Society 14, 1 (2012), 45–62. Google ScholarCross Ref
    10. 
  
  10. Eli J Finkel, Paul W Eastwick, Benjamin R Karney, Harry T Reis, and Susan Sprecher. 2012. Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 13, 1 (2012), 3–66. Google Scholar
    11. 
  
  11. Andrew T. Fiore, Lindsay Shaw Taylor, G.A. Mendelsohn, and Marti Hearst. 2008. Assessing Attractiveness in Online Dating Profiles. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Florence, Italy) (CHI ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 797–806. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357181 Google ScholarDigital Library
    12. 
  
  12. Amanda N Gesselman, Vivian P Ta, and Justin R Garcia. 2019. Worth a thousand interpersonal words: Emoji as affective signals for relationship-oriented digital communication. PloS one 14, 8 (2019), e0221297. Google Scholar
    13. 
  
  13. Jennifer L Gibbs, Nicole B Ellison, and Rebecca D Heino. 2006. Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication research 33, 2 (2006), 152–177. Google ScholarCross Ref
    14. 
  
  14. Jeffrey T Hancock, Mor Naaman, and Karen Levy. 2020. AI-Mediated Communication: Definition, Research Agenda, and Ethical Considerations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 25, 1 (2020), 89–100. Google ScholarCross Ref
    15. 
  
  15. Practical Happiness. 2020. Actual Examples of Good and Bad Female Dating Profiles. https://www.practicalhappiness.com/good-and-bad-dating-profiles. Google Scholar
    16. 
  
  16. Gunter J Hitsch, Ali Hortaçsu, and Dan Ariely. 2010. Matching and sorting in online dating. American Economic Review 100, 1 (2010), 130–63. Google ScholarCross Ref
    17. 
  
  17. Jess Hohenstein and Malte Jung. 2018. AI-Supported Messaging: An Investigation of Human-Human Text Conversation with AI Support. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI EA ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188487 Google Scholar
    18. 
  
  18. Jess Hohenstein and Malte Jung. 2020. AI as a moral crumple zone: The effects of AI-mediated communication on attribution and trust. Computers in Human Behavior 106 (2020), 106190. Google ScholarDigital Library
    19. 
  
  19. Maurice Jakesch, Megan French, Xiao Ma, Jeffrey T. Hancock, and Mor Naaman. 2019. AI-Mediated Communication: How the Perception That Profile Text Was Written by AI Affects Trustworthiness. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300469 Google ScholarDigital Library
    20. 
  
  20. Kellyseal. 2018. Analysts Project Online Dating Industry Worth $12 billion by 2020. https://www.datingsitesreviews.com/article.php?story=analysts-project-online-dating-industry-worth--12-billion-by-2020. Google Scholar
    21. 
  
  21. Vlad Krotov and Leiser Silva. 2018. Legality and ethics of web scraping. In Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems. Google Scholar
    22. 
  
  22. Xiao Ma, Jeffery T. Hancock, Kenneth Lim Mingjie, and Mor Naaman. 2017. Self-Disclosure and Perceived Trustworthiness of Airbnb Host Profiles. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing(Portland, Oregon, USA) (CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2397–2409. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998269 Google ScholarDigital Library
    23. 
  
  23. Sarah-rose Marcus. 2014. Online dating profile analysis: The intersection of identity, gender & religion. In Proceedings of the New York State Communication Association: Vol. 2013, Article 8. Citeseer. Google Scholar
    24. 
  
  24. Christina Masden and W. Keith Edwards. 2015. Understanding the Role of Community in Online Dating. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702417 Google ScholarDigital Library
    25. 
  
  25. James C McCroskey and Thomas A McCain. 1974. The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs 41(1974), 261–266. Google Scholar
    26. 
  
  26. Rory McGloin and Amanda Denes. 2018. Too hot to trust: Examining the relationship between attractiveness, trustworthiness, and desire to date in online dating. New Media & Society 20, 3 (2018), 919–936. Google ScholarCross Ref
    27. 
  
  27. Gregory Norcie, Emiliano De Cristofaro, and Victoria Bellotti. 2013. Bootstrapping trust in online dating: Social verification of online dating profiles. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 149–163. Google ScholarCross Ref
    28. 
  
  28. Geoff Norman. 2010. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education 15, 5 (2010), 625–632. Google Scholar
    29. 
  
  29. Vandana Rambaran. 2020. Utah man stabbed Tinder date to death hours after meeting her, police say. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/us/utah-man-stabbed-tinder-date-to-death-hours-after-meeting-her-police-allege. Google Scholar
    30. 
  
  30. Larry D Rosen, Nancy A Cheever, Cheyenne Cummings, and Julie Felt. 2008. The impact of emotionality and self-disclosure on online dating versus traditional dating. Computers in Human Behavior 24, 5 (2008), 2124–2157. Google ScholarDigital Library
    31. 
  
  31. Statista. 2020. Online Dating - Australia. Statista Market Forecast. https://www.statista.com/outlook/372/107/online-dating/australia?currency=aud Google Scholar
    32. 
  
  32. Statista. 2020. Online Dating - worldwide. Statista Market Forecast. https://www.statista.com/outlook/372/100/online-dating/worldwide. Google Scholar
    33. 
  
  33. Grant Stoddard. 2017. The 12 Biggest Dating Profile Blunders Men Make. https://bestlifeonline.com/dating-profile-mistakes/?nab=0. Google Scholar
    34. 
  
  34. David R Thomas. 2006. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation 27, 2 (2006), 237–246. Google Scholar
    35. 
  
  35. Tinder. 2016. Introducing Smart Photos - For The Most Swipeworthy You. https://blog.gotinder.com/introducing-smart-photos-for-the-most-swipeworthy-you/. Google Scholar
    36. 
  
  36. Catalina L. Toma. 2010. Perceptions of Trustworthiness Online: The Role of Visual and Textual Information. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Savannah, Georgia, USA) (CSCW ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/1718918.1718923 Google ScholarDigital Library
    37. 
  
  37. Catalina L Toma, Jeffrey T Hancock, and Nicole B Ellison. 2008. Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34, 8 (2008), 1023–1036. Google ScholarCross Ref
    38. 
  
  38. Tess Van der Zanden, Alexander P Schouten, Maria BJ Mos, and Emiel J Krahmer. 2020. Impression formation on online dating sites: Effects of language errors in profile texts on perceptions of profile owners’ attractiveness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 37, 3(2020), 758–778. Google ScholarCross Ref
    39. 
  
  39. Joseph B Walther. 2007. Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior 23, 5 (2007), 2538–2557. Google ScholarDigital Library
    40. 
  
  40. Joseph B Walther. 2008. Social information processing theory. Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives 391(2008). Google Scholar
    41. 
  
  41. Janelle Ward. 2017. What are you doing on Tinder? Impression management on a matchmaking mobile app. Information, Communication & Society 20, 11 (2017), 1644–1659. Google ScholarCross Ref
    42. 
  
  42. Sarah Wells. 2018. Hinge employs new algorithm to find your ‘most compatible’ match. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/11/hinge-employs-new-algorithm-to-find-your-most-compatible-match-for-you/. Google Scholar
    43. 
  
  43. Monica T Whitty. 2008. Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior 24, 4 (2008), 1707–1723. Google ScholarDigital Library
    44. 
  
  44. Douglas Zytko, Sukeshini A. Grandhi, and Quentin Jones. 2014. Impression Management Struggles in Online Dating. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Supporting Group Work (Sanibel Island, Florida, USA) (GROUP ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2660398.2660410 Google ScholarDigital Library
    45. 
  
  45. Douglas Zytko, Sukeshini A. Grandhi, and Quentin Jones. 2014. Impression Management through Communication in Online Dating. In Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (CSCW Companion ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 277–280. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556420.2556487 Google ScholarDigital Library
    46. 
  
  46. Douglas Zytko, Sukeshini A. Grandhi, and Quentin Jones. 2015. Frustrations with Pursuing Casual Encounters through Online Dating. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI EA ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1935–1940. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2732905 Google ScholarDigital Library
    47. 
  
  47. Doug Zytko, Sukeshini A. Grandhi, and Quentin Jones. 2016. The Coaches Said. What? Analysis of Online Dating Strategies Recommended by Dating Coaches. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Supporting Group Work (Sanibel Island, Florida, USA) (GROUP ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1145/2957276.2957287 Google ScholarDigital Library
    48. 
  
  48. Douglas Zytko, Victor Regalado, Nicholas Furlo, Sukeshini A. Grandhi, and Quentin Jones. 2020. Supporting Women in Online Dating with a Messaging Interface That Improves Their Face-to-Face Meeting Decisions. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW2, Article 137 (Oct. 2020), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415208 Google ScholarDigital Library
    49.