Kuhtreiber Final Draft

Running head: PERCIEVED DESIRABILITY, RECIPROCITY 1
Dating Online: How Self-Esteem, Physical Attractiveness, and Social Attractiveness Affect
Desirability and Reciprocity
Kara Kuhtreiber
Framingham State University
Author Note
Kara Kuhtreiber, Department of Psychology and Philosophy, Framingham State
University.
Special thanks to faculty supervisor Dawn Vreven.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kara Kuhtreiber, 12
General Ave, Shrewsbury, MA, 01545. Email: kkuhtreiber@student.framingham.edu

PERCIEVED DESIRABILITY, RECIPROCITY 2

Abstract
The present study was conducted to investigate the effects of participant self-esteem and
a scenario character’s physical and social attractiveness on desirability and participant
expectations of reciprocity in an online dating scenario. Participants consisted of 80
undergraduate students from a small university. After completing the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
scale, participants were randomly assigned to view one of four fictitious dating profiles that
contained a picture of either a physically attractive or physically unattractive man or woman
paired with either a socially attractive or socially unattractive description. After reading the
dating profile, participants were asked to complete a 19-question survey containing three
manipulation checks, eight desirability items, and eight reciprocity items. All questions followed
a six-point Likert scale format. Results indicated both a significant main effect and interaction
for physical and social attractiveness on desirability, as well as a significant main effect for self-
esteem on reciprocity. Further studies may use results to investigate risk-taking behavior in an
online dating environment as a function of self-esteem.

Dating Online: How Self-Esteem, Physical Attractiveness, and Social Attractiveness Affect
Desirability and Reciprocity
While in the past online dating may have been considered an ill-advised way to meet
someone, in the past several years it has become a widely accepted and popular way to seek
potential mates. In 2015, the total number of people in the US who had tried online dating totaled
41,250,000. The online dating industry brings in an annual income of roughly $1,000,000,000
(“Online Dating Statistics,” n.d.). With the rise of the popularity of online dating, studies
examining what attributes affect desirability have proliferated. How much physical attractiveness
effects desirability or likability is a commonly investigated question. Less commonly
investigated, however, are the effects of social attractiveness on desirability, and how the self-
esteem of a person looking at a dating profile interacts with the attractiveness of the profile and
how much reciprocity the dater feels they will receive.
There is a wide base of research supporting the claim that physical attractiveness is
perceived as an indicator of desirability or likability (hereafter assumed to mean the same thing)
(Eastwick, Eagly, Finkel, & Johnson, 2011; Ha, Overbeek, & Engels, 2008; Sritharan, Heilpern,
Wilbur, & Garwonski, 2010). Ha et al. (2010) investigated the importance of physical
attractiveness in terms of dating desirability among adolescents aged 13-18. The researchers
randomly provided 1,913 participants with pictures of either an attractive or unattractive person.
Photos were matched on characteristics such as quality, angle, and framing. Participants were
then asked to rate, on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (absolutely not) to 7 (absolutely) whether
they would like to date the person depicted in the photo. They also rated the appeal of the person
on another 7-point scale. Results showed that for both males and females, higher physical
attractiveness led to higher dating desire. A similar study by Sritharan et al. (2010) tested female

perceptions of how physical attractiveness affected desirability by presenting participants (100
women in one study and 80 in another) with a headshot of either an attractive or unattractive
male subject. Participants were then asked to complete a likability questionnaire. Results once
again indicated that high physical attractiveness led to higher perceptions of desirability. Another
study by Eastwick et al. (2011) aimed to gain insight into whether physical attractiveness
affected implicit perceptions of desirability. Ninety-four participants completed a pairing
exercise called the GNAT (Nosek & Banaji, 2001) that measured the strength of positive versus
negative associations regarding a single category (in this case, physical attractiveness). The
researchers found that participants had a faster response time when physical attractiveness was
paired with the concept of an ideal, rather than non-ideal, romantic partner. These results
indicated that “physical attractiveness [is] more closely associated in memory with a desirable
romantic partner than with an undesirable partner” (Eastwick et al., 2011).
Although many studies have examined the effect of physical attractiveness on
desirability, very few studies have examined the effect of social attractiveness (Brand, Bonatsos,
D’Orazio, & DeShong, 2011; Dar-Nimrod, Hansen, Proulx, Lehman, Champan, & Duberstein,
2012; Ha et al., 2008). Dar-Nimrod et al. (2012) examined which traits factor into perceptions of
social desirability. Two hundred ninety-seven participants ranked a set of adjectives on how
social desirable they found them on a scale of 1 (socially undersirable) to 7 (socially desirable).
Results indicated that confidence, attractiveness, competence, drive for success, trendiness, and
friendliness were traits that were considered socially attractive. Ha et al. (2008) examined the
effect of social status on desirability. One thousand nine hundred and thirteen teenage
participants were provided with a description or a person with either a high or low social status.
Social status was indicated as a composite of education, hobbies, parents’ careers, and ambition

level. Participants were then asked to rate, on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (absolutely not) to 7
(absolutely), whether they would like to date the person depicted in the photo. They also rated
the appeal of the person on another 7-point scale. Results showed that for females alone, higher
social status led to higher dating desire. Another study (Brand et al., 2011) asked whether more
physically attractive people actually wrote more socially attractive profiles. Fifty women were
each provided with 25 real dating profile pictures and 25 real dating profile bios selected from a
pool of 100 real dating profiles. Researchers made sure that no participant ever received a picture
and bio from the same dating profile. Participants were asked to rate the stimuli on attractiveness
and various desirability indicators (for example, kindness) on a scale ranging from 0 (not) to 4
(very), with an option for “cannot judge”. The researchers found that physical attractiveness was
positively correlated to the attractiveness of the bio, indicating that more physically attractive
people may in fact write more attractive bios, thus appearing more desirable.
There is a large gap in research regarding how participant self-esteem effects perceptions
of reciprocity.
The current study aims to replicate the findings about physical attractiveness and
desirability while shedding light on the effects and interactions of physical as well as social
attractiveness and self-esteem on desirability and reciprocity. The researcher created four
fictitious dating profiles containing manipulations of physical and social attractiveness and
measured participant self-esteem as well as the participant’s perceptions of desirability and
reciprocity.
It is hypothesized that profiles with high physical attractiveness will be more desirable
than profiles with low physical attractiveness (H1), profiles with high social attractiveness will
be more desirable than profiles with low physical attractiveness (H2), profiles with high physical

and social attractiveness will be most desirable (H3), individuals with high self-esteem will
indicate a higher perceived likelihood of reciprocity from the profile overall than individuals
with low self-esteem (H4), and that individuals with low self-esteem will indicate highest
perceived likelihood of reciprocity from the low physical attractiveness x low social
attractiveness profile overall (H5).
Method
Participants
Participants consisted of 80 undergraduate college students of whom 71.3% were women
and 81.3% were White. Other races included were Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Multiracial,
and other. Participants were between the ages of 18 and 56 years old (M = 20.5). All academic
classes were represented: freshmen (30%), sophomores (30%), juniors (26.3%), and seniors
(13.8%). Ninety-seven point five percent of participants were enrolled full-time. Most
participants reported their sexual preference as straight (80%), and 50% of participants were not
currently in a romantic or committed relationship. Extra credit was available for participation at
professors’ discretion.
Stimuli
Four different dating profiles were created for this study. Each profile varied in the
physical attractiveness and social attractiveness of the prospective date. The first profile
contained a physically attractive photo and a socially attractive description. The second
contained a physically unattractive photo and a socially attractive description. The third
contained a physically attractive photo and a socially unattractive description and the fourth
contained a physically unattractive photo and a socially unattractive description. In each profile,
the prospective date was 25 years old. Participants were asked to read the scenario according to

their desired sex. The man was named Fred and the woman was named Sally. Photos and
descriptions of education, work situation, personality, interests, and amount of friends were
provided for each scenario. Scenario descriptions were informed by the findings of Dar-Nimrod
et al. (2012). See Appendix A for all scenario pictures and descriptions.
Measures
To gather information about the participant’s background and experiences, a
demographic questionnaire was provided. The questionnaire consisted of questions related to the
participant’s class, enrollment status, age, sex, sexual preference, relationship status and race.
To examine participants’ self-esteem, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965) was used.
The scale consisted of ten statements about the participant (e.g., “On the whole, I am satisfied
with myself.”). Participants were asked to rank their agreement with each statement on a 4-point
scale ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree”. Total scores ranged from 10 to 40.
High scores indicated high self-esteem.
To check the effectiveness of each manipulation, a Likert type scale was developed. One
questions measured perceptions of the physical attractiveness of the photo. Participants were
asked to rate the stimuli on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (Very ugly) to 6 (Very attractive). If
scores were high in the physically attractive scenario and low in the physically unattractive
scenario, the physical attractiveness manipulations were considered to have been successful. The
next two questions measured perceptions of the social attractiveness of the description.
Participants were asked to rate the stimuli on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (Very uncool, Very
boring) to 6 (Very cool, Very interesting). If scores were high in the socially attractive scenario
and low in the socially unattractive scenario, the social attractiveness manipulations were
considered to have been successful.

To examine participants’ perceptions of the potential dates’ physical and social
attractiveness, desirability, and perceived reciprocity to the participant, a Likert type scale was
developed. Participants were provided with items like “I want to go on a date with Fred/Sally”
and “I think Fred/Sally would want to go on a date with me” and were asked to rate their
agreement on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). There were 11 total
questions examining desirability and eight total questions examining reciprocity. For both
desirability and reciprocity, scores could range from eight to 48. High scores indicated higher
levels of perceived desirability or reciprocity, respectively. See Appendix B for a copy of the
survey.
Procedure
Participants were solicited from classrooms. Interested students were first asked to sign a
letter of informed consent before taking the survey. Upon signing the informed consent (see
Appendix E), participants were randomly assigned to read one of four dating profiles. After
completing the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965), they were asked to read the dating profile.
After reading the profile, they were asked to complete the items relating to their opinion of the
profile. Lastly, participants completed a demographics questionnaire. As participants finished the
survey packets and handed them back, they were thanked greatly for their support and provided a
debriefing form (see Appendix F).
Results
Self-Esteem Levels

Self-esteem was calculated by splitting summary scores from the self-esteem items into
the categories high and low along the median (21). Participants with a score of 21 or higher were
considered to have high self-esteem (N = 44), and participants who scored below 21 were
considered to have low self-esteem (N = 35).
Manipulation Checks
To ensure that the physical attractiveness condition influenced participant’s perceptions
of the stimulus’ physical attractiveness, an independent-samples t test was calculated for the
question measuring the perceived physical attractiveness of the photo. The test indicated that the
manipulation was successful, t(78) = 9.47, p < .01. Consistent with the purpose of the
manipulation, the physically attractive picture was perceived as more attractive (M = 4.35) than
the physically unattractive picture (M = 2.25).
To ensure that the social attractiveness condition influenced participant’s perceptions of
the stimulus’ social attractiveness, an independent-samples T test was calculated for the
questions measuring the perceived social attractiveness of the description. The test indicated that
the manipulation was successful, t(78) = 6.66, p < .01. Consistent with the purpose of the
manipulation, the socially attractive description was perceived as more attractive (M = 8.29) than
the socially unattractive description (M = 5.29).
Perceived Desirability
To examine the effects of physical and social attractiveness on desirability, a 2 (physical
attractiveness: high, low) x 2 (social attractiveness: high, low) x 2 (self-esteem, high, low)
ANOVA was computed. Levene’s Test of Equal Variance was not significant, so no correction
was applied. For physical attractiveness, a significant main effect was found, F(1,70) = 14.68,
p < .01. Consistent with the first hypothesis, stimuli in the high physical attractiveness condition

were perceived as more desirable (M = 23.54) than the low physical attractiveness condition (M
= 16.07). The main effect for social attractiveness was also significant, F(1,70) = 9.87, p < .01.
Consistent with the second hypothesis, stimuli in the high social attractiveness condition were
perceived as more desirable (M = 22.87) than the low social attractiveness condition (M =
16.74). Additionally, the interaction between physical and social attractiveness was significant,
F(1,70) = 6.70, p < .01. Consistent with the third hypothesis, stimuli in the high physical and
social attractiveness condition were perceived as more desirable (M = 29.13) than the low
physical and social attractiveness condition (M = 17.96). Refer to Figure 1 for a graph depicting
the effects of physical and social attractiveness on desirability.
Perceived Reciprocity
To examine the effects of physical and social attractiveness and participant self-esteem
on reciprocity, a 2 (physical attractiveness: high, low) x 2 (social attractiveness: high, low) x 2
(self-esteem, high, low) ANOVA was computed. Levene’s Test of Equal Variance was not
significant, so no correction was applied. The main effect of self-esteem on perceived reciprocity
was found to be significant, F(1,70) = 5.28, p < .05. However, contrary to the fourth hypothesis,
participants with low levels of self-esteem indicated higher levels of perceived reciprocity (M =
29.31) than those with high levels of self-esteem (M = 24.85), as depicted in Figure 2. Contrary
to the fifth hypothesis, the three-way interaction between participant self-esteem and stimuli
physical and social attractiveness was not significant, F(1,70) = .22, p > .05.
Discussion

The purpose of this study was to measure how physical and social attractiveness affected
perceptions of desirability and how self esteem and physical and social attractiveness affected
perceptions of reciprocity. After completing the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965),
participants were randomly assigned to view one of four fictitious dating profiles that differed in
physical and social attractiveness (attractive, unattractive). Participants then answered 19 items
ranking their perceptions of the profile’s desirability and the amount of reciprocity they expected
from the profile.
The hypothesis that profiles with high physical attractiveness would be more desirable
than profiles with low physical attractiveness was supported. Profiles that depicted a physically
attractive photo were perceived as perceived as significantly more desirable than physically
unattractive profiles. These results reflect the findings of Eastwick et al. (2011), Ha et al. (2008),
and Sritharan et al. (2010).
The hypothesis that profiles with high social attractiveness would be more desirable than
profiles with low physical attractiveness was also supported. Profiles with a socially attractive
description were perceived as significantly more desirable than profiles with a socially
unattractive description. These results reflect the findings of Brant et al. (2011), and build upon
the findings of Ha et al. (2008) by showing that social attractiveness factors into perceptions of
desirability for men as well as women.
Moreover, the hypothesis that profiles with high physical and social attractiveness would
be perceived as most desirable was supported. The high physical attractiveness x high social
attractiveness profile was ranked as significantly more desirable than the rest of the profiles.
These results support both the findings of Eastwick et al. (2011), Ha et al. (2008), and Sritharan

et al. (2010) regarding physical attractiveness and the findings of Brant et al. (2011) and Ha et al.
(2008) regarding social attractiveness.
Surprisingly, the hypothesis that individuals with high self-esteem would indicate a
higher perceived likelihood of reciprocity from the profile overall than individuals with low self-
esteem was not supported. Individuals with low self-esteem actually indicated significantly
higher levels of perceived reciprocity than individuals with high self-esteem. This result may be
due to a phenomenon called wishful thinking, or it may be due to a limitation in the way self-
esteem scores were divided into high and low categories. Because self-esteem is normally
distributed, truly high and low scores are rare. With only 80 participants it was impossible to use
only extremely high and low scores, so instead all of the scores were split down the median into
the groups high and low. As a result, both groups actually contain a large number of participants
with average self-esteem. In order to more accurately test this hypothesis, a much larger sample
size would be necessary so that only participants with extremely high or low self-esteem could
be included in the analysis.
Contrary to the last hypothesis, individuals with low self-esteem did not indicate the
highest perceived likelihood of reciprocity from the low physical attractiveness x low social
attractiveness profile overall. Like with the fourth hypothesis, is it possible that limitations in the
way self-esteem was split into groups (high, low) caused the insignificant results. Future studies
with a larger sample size allowing for more accurate groupings of high and low self-esteem
would shed more light onto whether an interaction may exist between self-esteem and physical
and social attractiveness or not.
Besides containing limitations regarding the distribution of self-esteem scores, this study
may have also been limited by socially desirable responding. Participants may have been

unwilling to make judgments about Fred or Sally based on their physical appearance. Moreover,
although the research attempted to choose photos that would widely be perceived as physically
attractive or unattractive, the photos were not compared to other photos in the piloting process.
Having pilot participants rank several photos on attractiveness may have helped the researcher to
include photos that were more universally regarded as attractive or unattractive. The same is true
for the profile description, although the descriptions were informed by the findings of Dar-
Nimrod et al. (1012) about socially attractive traits.
The findings of this study imply that physical and social attractiveness are important for
generating interest in an online dating environment. As such, online daters could use these
findings to inform how they set up their profile. This study was unique in that it examined the
relationship between self-esteem and perceived reciprocity. Future studies could expand this
study’s findings by examining this relationship with a larger and more diverse sample. In
addition, future studies could use these findings to examine risk-taking behavior in an online
dating environment in relation to self-esteem levels.

References
Brand, R. J., Bonatsos, A., D’Orazio, R., & DeShong, H. (2011). What is beautiful is good, even
online: Correlations between photo attractiveness and text attractiveness in men’s online
dating profiles. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 166–170.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.023
Dar-Nimrod, I., Hansen, I. G., Proulx, T., Lehman, D. R., Chapman, B. P., & Duberstein, P. R.
(2012). Coolness: An empirical investigation. Journal of Individual Differences, 33(4),
175-185. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000088
Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A. H., Finkel, A. J., Johnson, S. E. (2011). Implicit and explicit
preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: A double dissociation in
predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 993-1011.
doi: 10.1037/a0024061
Ha, T., Overbeek, G., & Engles, R. (2010). Effects of attractiveness and social status on dating
desire in heterosexual adolescents: An experimental study. Archive of Sexual Behavior,
39, 1063-1071.
Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The go.no-go association task. Social Cognition, 19, 625-
666. doi: 10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886
Online Dating Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved April 3, 2015, from
http://www.statisticbrain.com/online-dating-statistics/
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Spielmann, S. S., MacDonald, G., Maxwell, J. A., Joel, S., Peragine, D., Muise, A., Impett, E. A.
(2013). Settling for less out of fear of being single. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 105(6), 1049-1073. doi: 10.1037/a0034628
Sritharan, R., Heilpern, K., Wilbur, C. J., Gawronski, B. (2010). I think I like you: Spontaneous
and deliberate evaluations of potential romantic partners in an online dating context.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 1062-1077. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.703

Figure 1

Figure 2

Appendix A: Stimuli
Please readthe following dating profile before moving on the Part 2 of the
survey. Readfor Fred or Sally depending on your sexual preference.
Fred Sally
My name is Fred/Sally. I am 25 and am working on
getting my master’s degree from Harvard. I am also
employed full-time. I would characterize myself as
adventurous, friendly, and confident. For leisure, I enjoy
jet-skiing and socializing at the bar with my friends.
Message me if you want to have a good time!
Please keepthis profile depiction in mind as you complete Part 2 of the
survey.
1,1

Fred Sally
My name is Fred/Sally. I am 25 and am working on
getting my master’s degree from Harvard. I am also
employed full-time. I would characterize myself as
adventurous, friendly, and confident. For leisure, I enjoy
jet-skiing and socializing at the bar with my friends.
Message me if you want to have a good time!
survey.
2,1

Fred Sally
My name is Fred/Sally. I am 25 and am currently
unemployed. I went to college but dropped out before I
finished my Bachelors. I would characterize myself as
timid, slightly reclusive, and I need to work on my
confidence. For leisure, I enjoy playing Farmville and
hanging out with my cat- I don’t have any friends. Please
message me, if you want… I hope you do.
survey.
1,2

Fred Sally
My name is Fred/Sally. I am 25 and am currently
unemployed. I went to college but dropped out before I
finished my Bachelors. I would characterize myself as
timid, slightly reclusive, and I need to work on my
confidence. For leisure, I enjoy playing Farmville and
hanging out with my cat- I don’t have any friends. Please
message me, if you want… I hope you do.
survey.
2,2

Appendix B: Survey
See next page for survey.

ID # ________
The Dancing Banana
Study
Spring 2015

Part One
Instructions: Below is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about yourself.
Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement.
1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
2. At times I think I am no good at all.
3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people.
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
6. I certainly feel useless at times.
7. I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.

8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.
9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
10. I take a positive attitude toward myself.
Please readthe dating profile on the next page before continuing to the rest of
the survey.

Part Two
Instructions: Below is a list of statements and questions about the profile you just read. For each
item, please circle the number on the scale that most accurately reflects your opinion.
1. Fred/Sally is…
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Very
ugly attractive
2. Fred/Sally is…
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Very
uncool cool
3. Fred/Sally is…
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Very
boring Interesting
4. I want to be Fred/Sally’s friend.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
Disagree agree
5. I would message Fred/Sally.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
Disagree agree

6. I want to go on a date with Fred/Sally.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
Disagree agree
7. When I message Fred/Sally, they will message me back.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
Disagree agree
8. Fred/Sally would want to go on a date with me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
Disagree agree
9. Fred/Sally would think I am…
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Very
ugly attractive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Very
uncool cool
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Very
boring Interesting
Please continue to Part 3.

Part 3
Instructions: Please answer the following questions about yourself.
1. This semester, I am a (circle one):
a. Freshman (0-7 credits completed)
b. Sophmore (8-15 credits completed)
c. Junior (16-23 credits completed)
d. Senior (24 + credits completed)
e. Other
2. This semester, I am enrolled:
a. Part-time (1-2 courses / 8 credit hours per week)
b. Full-time (3-4 courses / 12 credit hours per week)
3. What is your date of birth? (MM/DD/YYYY)? __ __/__ __/__ __ __ __
4. What is your sex (circle one)?
a. Male
b. Female
5. What is your sexual preference (circle one)?
a. Straight
b. Bisexual
c. Asexual
d. Homosexual
e. Something else
f. Don’t know
6. Are you currently in a romantic/committed relationship? (circle one)?
a. Yes
b. No
7. What is your racial/ethnic background (circle one)?
a. Africal American/Black
b. Asian American or Pacific Islander
c. Caucasian/White (non-Hispanic)
d. Hispanic or Latino/Latina
e. Multi-Racial
f. Other (please explain): _________________________
Thank you for your time!

Appendix C: Alternate Assignment
A dating site moderator offers tips for finding love online
By Bradley Demerich February 6
When I moved to Washington to start my career, I was, like many people here,
so focused on my work that I had no time to go out and meet people. Reluctantly, I
turned to online dating to make friends and perhaps find someone who could handle my
egregious use of puns.
I’m not sure if it was my level of activity or lack of formal complaints, but somehow I
caught the eyes of the folks running a popular dating Web site, who offered me the
opportunity to be a paid moderator. The income wasn’t high enough to even call it a
part-time job — it was more like a way to earn money for a morning coffee. But working
behind the scenes exposed me to the strange intricacies of online dating, which I found
is indeed a great way to get to know people in the city — it led me to several casual dates
and to a relationship that lasted a few months.
Though I’m currently taking a break from both moderating and trying to meet someone,
I offer this guide to online dating, which I think can work for just about anyone who is
willing to put in a little effort. Just keep these tips in mind.
Pointer 1: Remember your high school English class
Good grammar and writing go a long way. Not only do they show that you have the
cognitive ability to be a functioning adult, but they also give people fewer reasons to
ignore your profile/messages. When describing yourself, don’t tell people what you are.
Instead show them. When you’re finished writing something, proofread it. One young
man put on his profile: “I am very good at showing of the making girls feel beauty.” Not
sure if he was typing quickly or if English is his second language; either way it shows the
importance of reading over (or asking someone to read over) your profile.
Pointer 2: Use a good profile photo
Your profile photo is one of the most important parts of an online dating Web site.
While we humans don’t like to admit how shallow we are, 90 percent of online daters’
interest in other people comes from the profile photos, according to data from OkCupid.
This means that the photo is basically your only impression. Don’t be like some of the
people I’ve seen who use all the Photoshop tools, or post half-naked photos of
themselves atop a fake dinosaur, or show pictures of their cats. Just take a photo of
yourself and time stamp it.
One young lady posted a photo of herself in a sundress on a sailboat. I liked sailing,
spoke with her a bit and thought she was cute. So we decided to meet at a local pub.
When I got there, I didn’t recognize her because the photo was not actually of her; the
photo was taken by her.
Pointer 3: Don’t dis online dating
Everyone else probably feels the same awkwardness about it. Making negative
comments on your profile or in your e-mail will just make potential daters more self-

conscious about the situation and want to pass you by. I learned this early on that when
I wrote, “I never thought I would be doing this.” I unintentionally made the people I was
corresponding with feel devalued.
Pointer 4: Skip the soft sells
No one reading an online profile wants to experience deja vu. Anyone can say he’s a
good listener or really nice. Focus instead on your abilities, your aspirations and ideas. If
you aren’t all that interesting, try tomake what’s boring appealing to the reader. “On
Saturdays, I like sitting in pajamas eating cookies,” doesn’t sound as intriguing as,
“When it’s time to relax, I’m throwing on stretchy pants and devouring a sleeve of
Oreos.”
One day, more than 200 complaints came into the site about fake profiles. Turns out,
real people were just using the same phrase: “I’m a happy person who really enjoys
hanging out with friends, watching Netflix and just being me.” If this describes you, I
know a few million people who you’d get along with.
Pointer 5: Don’t be offended
The central element of online dating is the sheer volume of people involved. People
move quickly and, as with anything online, have short attention spans. Every time you
go online, you will see hundreds of attractive people. When you start a conversation and
it ends within twomessages, don’t respond later by insulting the person. Instead, just
focus on the law of large numbers. Another experiment by OkCupid determined that,
even when a low match percentage is displayed, 14 percent of the people you reach out
to will respond at least once. So, even in a worst-case scenario, one out of every seven
people you message should reply. The likelihood of a response decreases as the
conversation continues online, so set up a meeting quickly. But if the conversation does
stop, don’t be offended. Just find seven more people you find interesting and start over.
Demerich, Bradley. "A Dating Site Moderator Offers Tips for Finding Love Online. Hints:Better Grammar, Less Photoshop."
The Washington Post. TheWashington Post, n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2015. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/a-
dating-site-moderator-offers-tips-for-finding-love-online/2015/01/27/722eb518-96c4-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html>.
Questions:
1. According to Demerich, what aspect of a profile generates 90% of user’s interest?
2. What percentage of people who are messaged will respond at least once?
3. What do you think Demerich means by “soft sell”?
4. Which of these tips did you find most helpful?

Appendix D: Script
Script
Hello everyone! Thank you for letting me come in to talk to you! I am Kara Kuhtreiber and I
am a Thesis student in Dr. Vreven’s class. I am conducting a study called the Dancing
Banana study. This study will take 15 minutes or less to complete. To participate in this
study you must be at least 18 years old and not have taken Research Methods II or higher.
All of your responses will be kept confidential, and you may skip and questions or stop the
study at any time. You will receive a consent form, a written scenario, and a short survey.
Please read and sign the consent form before beginning the study> If you would like a copy
of the consent form to keep, please let me know and I will provide a copy. Then, please
complete the first part of the survey. After completing part one, you will find a scenario in
your survey packet, Please read in completely and keep it in mind which you complete the
rest of the survey. If you are unable or do not wish to participate in this study, I can provide
an alternative assignment for you to you.
There may be extra credit for your participation available at your professor’s discretion.
Thank you for your help!

Appendix E: Informed Consent
Spring 2014
Dear Framingham State University Students,
I am currently enrolled in Thesis, part of the research sequence for Psychology, with
Dr. Vreven. I would like to invite you to participate in the Dancing Banana study.
Participants will fill out a survey that will ask questions about their opinions on a fake
dating profile as well as about themselves. This survey will take approximately 15 minutes
to complete. I would very much appreciate your participation in this study!
You must be 18 years of age or older in order to participate. You also may not be
currently enrolled in or have taken Research Methods II or higher. If you choose to
participate in this study, all your information and responses will be kept confidential. Your
participation is completely voluntary- you may skip any questions you are uncomfortable
answering or stop the study at any time.
If you choose to participate in this study, you must sign the line below this letter and
return this page to me. An extra copy of this informed consent is available upon request.
After completing the survey, you may turn it in to me. Extra credit may be available
at your professor’s discretion. If you are unable to or do not wish to participate in the
study, or have already taken it, an alternative assignment will be provided that may be
completed for any extra credit being offered by the professor.
If you have any questions or concerns about the study, you may contact me, Kara
Kuhtreiber, at kkuhtreiber@student.framingham.edu.
Thank you so much for your time and interest in the Dancing Banana study!
Sincerely,
Kara Kuhtreiber
I ____________________________________ have read the attached letter of informed consent and
understand that my participation is this study is completely voluntary and that all of my
responses will remain confidential. I understand that I may withdraw from this study at
any time without penalty and acknowledge that all of my questions up to this point have
been answered. I also understand that I may skip any question that I do not feel
comfortable answering.
Signature___________________________________________ Date_________________

Appendix F: Debriefing Form
Spring 2015
Thank you for your participation in the Dancing Banana study. The purpose of this study
was to examine perceptions of desirability and reciprocity based on self-esteem and physical and
social attractiveness. I expect to find that:
 Profiles with high physical attractiveness will be more desirable than profiles with low
physical attractiveness.
 Profiles with high social attractiveness will be more desirable than profiles
with low social attractiveness.
 Profiles with high physical and social attractiveness will be most desirable.
 Individuals with high self-esteem will indicate a higher perceived likelihood of reciprocity
overall than individuals with low self-esteem.
 Individuals with low self-esteem will indicate highest perceived likelihood of reciprocity
from the profile depicting low physical attractiveness and low social attractiveness.
Individual responses from this study will remain confidential and no personal information
will be released. Please do not talk about this study with your peers for at least 30 days so that
the purpose of this study can be kept confidential throughout data collection. IF you would like
to know the results of this study or have any questions, contact Kara Kuhtreiber at
kkuhtreiber@student.framingham.edu. If any part of this study made you feel uncomfortable or
if you feel the need to talk with someone about it, contact the Framingham State University
Counseling Center at 508-626-4640 or visit their office in Foster Hall. Thank you again for your
time and interest in this study!
Sincerely,
Kara Kuhtreiber

Kuhtreiber Final Draft

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (15)

Similar a Kuhtreiber Final Draft

Similar a Kuhtreiber Final Draft (20)

Kuhtreiber Final Draft