Evidence of a life, not symbols of one
Lesson 3 of 6 in this module · about 6 minutes · Romantic communication
The idea
Show what you really do with people you really know; symbols you borrow, stage or buy show nothing true about you.
The course principle is: “Evidence of a life is more useful than symbols of a life.” This is a course principle, not a research finding.
Evidence is a photo at your running club, the bread you baked, a friend’s real comment. Symbols are a borrowed car, a staged crowd, a hotel lobby you were passing through, paid-for followers, or a hint of a relationship that isn’t there.
Research gives some support for the difference, with limits. In two experiments with mock profiles of one platform, viewers gave more weight to what friends said about a person than to the person’s own claims. Support was mixed in one of the two experiments 1. These were mock profiles from one research group, not real dating decisions 1. In this course, that is a reason to treat a friend’s real, unprompted words as evidence. Words you script for a friend to post are not evidence. That is a course principle too.
Counts are weak evidence. A 2008 experiment found that Facebook profiles with very high friend counts were rated less socially attractive than mid-range ones. A 2018 replication found no significant effect on social or physical attractiveness 2. Both used simulated profiles shown to raters, not real choices 2. Taken together, a count is weak evidence either way 2.
Being seen with a crowd is not shown to help. The mate-copying studies measure how observers rate pictured or filmed people. None of the studies cited here tested whether being seen with others makes a real person more likely to be approached or chosen 3.
Promoting yourself may also backfire. In three experiments in one paper, people who promoted themselves tended to overestimate how pleased listeners would be and underestimate how annoyed they will be, and it can lower how much they are liked 4. That research is about listing achievements, not about warm everyday storytelling, and not about romantic settings 4. A plain photo of what you do needs no claim.
Other people in your photos need to agree. Ask before posting someone, or crop them out. That is a course principle about privacy, not a research finding. A child who isn’t yours, an ex, a friend who didn’t agree: leave them out.
Why it matters
Symbols tell a viewer nothing true, and they have to be explained or hidden at the first meeting. Posting people without asking spends their privacy for your presence.
What it looks like
Example
After the Sunday 10k at your running club, you want to post a photo of the group. You ask in the group chat. Dara, 31, replies, “Crop me out please.” You crop her out and post it with the caption “Sunday 10k, slower than last year.”
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same run. You post the group photo without asking, tagging everyone, with the caption “my crew, every weekend.” You run once a month, and Dara asked not to be posted.
The photo shows a life that is not yours, and it posts Dara after she asked not to be. At the first meeting you either explain it or hope it is not mentioned. Curate reality; don’t counterfeit it.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Show what you really do with people who agreed to be shown; leave out symbols you borrowed or bought.
If you are unsure whether someone agreed, ask, or crop them out. If you are unsure whether a photo is evidence or a symbol, ask whether it shows something you really did.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: Evidence or symbol? Pick the photos that really show a life.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, think once about a photo you’d choose to show a new friend what your weekends are like, and why.
What this doesn’t tell you
The experiments used mock or simulated profiles, small samples, and results that were mixed or not replicated. Nothing here shows that any kind of photo makes anyone more interested. The rule about agreement is a course principle about privacy, not a research finding.
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.
Evidence: PlausibleWhen two experiments gave viewers a choice between a person's own claims and what friends said about them on a mock profile, friends' comments carried more weight, which is the core idea of warranting theory.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: Walther et al. (2009; N=115 and N=125) found that perceivers relied more on information the target could not easily control than on self-descriptions: in the physical attractiveness experiment friends' comments overrode self-comments, while in the extraversion experiment rival explanations (negativity, additivity) also fit. The warranting idea originated with Walther and Parks (2002), a book chapter not cited here. Marketing framing: none common. Bears on A4: §46 authentic social proof; supports 'evidence of a life beats symbols of a life', but only as a tendency in mock-profile experiments, not a rule about real people.
What it does not show
- Two experiments with mock-ups of one platform; sample not described in the abstract; not real profiles or real dating decisions.
- Support was mixed in the extraversion experiment, where rival explanations also applied.
- Single research group; no large replication found.
- Measures impressions of extraversion and attractiveness, not whether anyone chose to meet the target.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Hamel, L. M., Shulman, H. C. (2009). Self-Generated Versus Other-Generated Statements and Impressions in Computer-Mediated Communication, Communication Research.
Evidence: PlausibleA 2008 experiment found that Facebook profiles with very high friend counts were rated less socially attractive than mid-range ones, but a 2018 replication with five friend-count levels found no significant effect on social or physical attractiveness.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: Tong et al. (2008) reported a curvilinear relationship between friend count and social attractiveness, with an overabundance of friends lowering ratings, and a more complex one for extraversion; Lane et al. (2018) tested 102, 302, 502, 702 and 902 friends and found no significant effect on social or physical attractiveness, though extraversion impressions differed. The original result is therefore not established as a robust inverted U. Marketing framing: follower and friend counts as social proof, or too many as a red flag (common framing, unattributed). Bears on A4: §46 authentic social proof; supports not teaching a target follower or friend count and treating counts as weak, context-dependent cues.
What it does not show
- One original experiment and one replication; the replication's sample and exact test are not in the abstract.
- Simulated Facebook profiles shown to raters, not real choices about real people.
- Original and replication use different friend-count levels, so they are not an exact repeat.
- Facebook in 2008 and 2018; today's platforms and norms differ.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Tong, S. T., Van Der Heide, B., Langwell, L., Walther, J. B. (2008). Too Much of a Good Thing? The Relationship Between Number of Friends and Interpersonal Impressions on Facebook, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.
- Lane, B. L. (2018). Still Too Much of a Good Thing? The Replication of Tong, Van Der Heide, Langwell, and Walther (2008), Communication Studies.
Evidence: PlausibleThe mate-copying studies measure how observers rate pictured or filmed people; none of the studies cited here tested whether being seen with other people makes a real person more likely to be approached or chosen.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: the studies cited here used pictures, descriptions or speed-date recordings with self-reported interest, so they cannot show that staging company works in real dating. See reciprocal-liking-c1 for evidence that perceiving the other person's own interest goes with more interest in them, and attraction-triggers-c6 for the gap between advertised hidden triggers and the research. Lessons must not teach using people as props or provoking jealousy. Marketing framing: dating marketing commonly says 'pre-selection' makes a man attractive, summed up as be seen with women and she will want you (common framing, unattributed).
What it does not show
- Claim about what the cited studies did not test; it is not a claim that the effect is absent
- Observer ratings, not real-world outcomes
- Student and Western samples
- No large registered replication found
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Sources
- Gouda-Vossos, A., Nakagawa, S., Dixson, B. J. W., Brooks, R. C. (2018). Mate Choice Copying in Humans: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology.
- Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Asendorpf, J. B. (2010). Humans show mate copying after observing real mate choices, Evolution and Human Behavior.
- Waynforth, D. (2007). Mate Choice Copying in Humans, Human Nature.
Evidence: PlausiblePeople who try to make a good impression by promoting themselves tend to overestimate how pleased listeners will be and underestimate how annoyed they will be, and the promotion can lower how much they are liked.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: in three experiments (Scopelliti et al. 2015), self-promoters projected their own feelings onto recipients, expecting more pride and happiness and less annoyance than recipients reported, and excessive self-promotion in impression-management efforts led targets to like promoters less and to see them as braggarts. Sharing information about oneself in general is different: see self-disclosure-questions-c1 for disclosure and liking. Marketing framing: listing achievements or telling impressive stories to show value (common framing, unattributed).
What it does not show
- Three experiments in one paper; no large replication was found.
- Sample, setting and country were not seen in the abstract.
- About promoting one's achievements, not warm personal storytelling or shared vulnerability.
- Not about romantic settings.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Scopelliti, I., Loewenstein, G., Vosgerau, J. (2015). You Call It “Self-Exuberance”; I Call It “Bragging”: Miscalibrated Predictions of Emotional Responses to Self-Promotion, Psychological Science.
More practice
The rest of the set, Evidence of a life, not symbols of one: five checks: 5 items, about 5 minutes. Decide what the evidence supports, and how well. Open the exercise set.