Charm Upgrade

Learn · Before the conversation: online presence

The same person online and in person

Lesson 2 of 6 in this module · about 6 minutes · Romantic communication

The idea

Treat your online presence as a promise about the person who will turn up: current, recognizable and true.

That these three checks are the right ones is a course principle, not a research finding. The studies below only show why a gap can matter.

The promise idea comes from one study. One qualitative study of 37 online daters proposed that users treat a dating profile as a promise about the person they will meet 1. That is the authors’ interpretation of interviews, not a tested rule 1.

Small polish is common. In one study of 80 online daters, gaps between the profile and measured height, weight or age were common but usually small 2. The study checked only those three details. It is not an estimate of how often profiles mislead, and it did not test large invented claims 2.

You may not see your own drift. In one study of 54 dating photographs, independent judges rated about a third as not accurate, while the daters rated their own photos as fairly accurate 3. The judges rated photographs, so “not accurate” is a perception, not a measured mismatch 3.

One study of 94 online daters found that perceiving the partner as deceptive went with a worse first date 4. The person’s own deception did not predict how the date went. That is a null result in one small sample. It is not evidence that deception is harmless 4.

So three things matter here.

Current: your job, your city and your photos are what they are now.

Recognizable: your main photo is clear, current, and looks like you on an ordinary day.

True: nothing in it is deliberately misleading.

This is not about looking better. It is about the person who arrives matching the one shown.

Why it matters

A gap between your presence and the person who arrives turns the first meeting into a correction. Drift is hard to see yourself: in one study, judges rated about a third of 54 dating photos not accurate, while the daters rated their own fairly accurate 3.

What it looks like

Example

Your main photo is from a wedding six years ago. Leilani, 36, says it’s nice but not quite how you look now. You swap it for one a friend took last month at the climbing wall, face clear, in ordinary daylight. Your presence still says Leeds, though you moved to York in spring, so you change that too.

The same moment, handled the other way

Counterexample

Same photo. You keep it and add an inch to your height, reasoning that everyone polishes a little.

The person who arrives is not the one shown, and the meeting starts with a correction. Curate reality; don’t counterfeit it.

The one thing to remember

The rule

Before you post it, ask whether someone meeting you tomorrow would recognize the same person.

Ask it again when something changes: a new job, a new city, a new photo. If the answer is no, change what you posted, not the person who turns up.

Try it now

Item 1 of this lesson’s set: Which photo leads? Look at which photo a person meeting you would recognize.

Open the exercise set

In the real world (optional)

If you like, look once at your main photo and ask whether a friend meeting you today would recognize you from it.

What this doesn’t tell you

These are small studies of online daters, published from 2008 to 2018 2 4, and the photo study was in the US 3. They measured a few checkable details and judgments of photographs, and the date study is correlational 4. Nothing here says how much polish anyone accepts, and none of it is advice about looks.

Why do we believe this?

Each numbered mark in the text opens the evidence behind that sentence. Every claim in this course carries one of five labels.

Well supported
A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate.
Supported with caveats
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings.
Plausible
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question.
Speculative
An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested.
Marketing claim
Something a seller says about their product, without published evidence.
  1. PlausibleA qualitative study of 37 online daters proposed that users treat a profile as a promise about the person they will meet, and construct, assess and justify discrepancies against that standard.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: Ellison, Hancock and Toma (2011) analysed interviews with 37 online daters on how they construct, assess and justify discrepancies between profile and offline person, and proposed 'profile as promise' as a lens: a profile is read as a promise about the person met offline. It is a qualitative framework from retrospective accounts, not a measure of what actually breaks trust. Marketing framing: none common. Bears on A4: §44 online_signal ≈ real_person; supports framing congruence as keeping the promises a profile makes.

    What it does not show

    • Qualitative interviews with 37 participants; retrospective and self-reported; not generalisable in size.
    • Abstract only read; no effect sizes or rates.
    • Online dating users of one era and platform type; not social media in general.
    • The framework is an interpretation by the authors, not independently tested here.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Source

  2. PlausibleIn one study of 80 online daters, discrepancies between profile and measured height, weight or age were common but usually small.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: Toma, Hancock and Ellison (2008) compared profile height, weight and age with measured values and found deviations that were ubiquitous but small; men tended to misstate height and women weight, those farther from the average misstated more, and self-rated accuracy matched observed accuracy, so the gaps looked deliberate rather than mistaken. The authors read this as strategic balancing of the editable profile against the prospect of meeting. Marketing framing: presenting an enhanced version of yourself is normal and low risk (common framing, unattributed); the study measured small, checkable physical details, and says nothing about large invented lifestyles. Bears on A4: §44 congruence; supports teaching that people expect small polish and that the aim is a recognisable person, not that polish is a strategy to copy.

    What it does not show

    • One study of 80 daters; setting and country not given in the abstract; not a population estimate of how often profiles deceive.
    • Measured only height, weight and age (checkable attributes); large fabrications, interests and lifestyle claims were not tested.
    • Daters took part knowing their attributes would be checked, which may have changed answers (design inference; not stated in the abstract).
    • No large replication found.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Source

  3. PlausibleIn a study of 54 online dating photographs, independent judges rated about a third as not accurate, even though the daters rated their own photos as fairly accurate.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: Hancock and Toma (2009) report that photographs were the profile element daters themselves rated least accurate in the companion study (toma-2008-deception), and that judges flagged inconsistencies such as older photos, retouching or professional shots, more often for women's photos than men's. The authors describe a tension between looking attractive and not being judged deceptive at a later meeting. Marketing framing: a better photo is a harmless edge (common framing, unattributed). Bears on A4: §45 profile audit, photo item 'current, recognisable'; supports a recency and recognisability check, never a photo-scoring tool.

    What it does not show

    • 54 photographs from heterosexual daters, one US study from the same group as toma-2008-deception; sample and judges not described in the abstract.
    • Judges rated photographs, not the daters in person, so 'not accurate' is a perception, not a measured mismatch.
    • The sex difference concerns this sample's photos; it is not a statement about all women or men.
    • No large replication found.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Sources

  4. PlausibleIn one study of 94 online daters, perceiving that the partner had been deceptive went with a worse first date, while the person's own deception did not predict how the first date went.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: Sharabi and Caughlin (2018) surveyed online daters before and after a first date and analysed their emails; perceived partner deception, but not own deception, negatively predicted first date success, and own deception was linked to more negative emotion words in emails. A related experiment on social media found that acquaintances' online and offline inconsistencies were judged more intentionally misleading and less trustworthy than friends' (DeAndrea and Walther 2011). This does not show that deceiving is safe: own deception was self-reported, and the study measured one date. Marketing framing: small exaggerations are tolerated if the date goes well (common framing, unattributed). Bears on A4: §44 congruence and the 'no deliberate misrepresentation' rule; supports teaching that mismatch tends to cost trust, not teaching how much mismatch is tolerated.

    What it does not show

    • Single study with 94 completers; self-reported deception, which may be under-reported.
    • Correlational; first date success was self-reported at one point in time.
    • Own deception not predicting the outcome is a null in one small sample, not evidence that it is harmless.
    • DeAndrea and Walther (2011) concerns social media inconsistencies and observers' ratings, not dating outcomes.
    • No large replication found.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Sources

More practice

The rest of the set, The same person online and in person: four checks: 4 items, about 4 minutes. Choose or order the ways of saying a line that fit what you mean. Open the exercise set.