Sexting pp 19-38 | Cite as

Information Disclosure, Trust and Health Risks in Online Dating

  • Lara Hallam
  • Michel Walrave
  • Charlotte J. S. De Backer
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Cyberpsychology book series (PASCY)


Online dating is characterized by computer-mediated communication (CMC) with a lessened availability of physical context cues, limiting online daters to nonverbally express themselves. This restricted amount of available cues generated a scientific research tension between the cues-filtered-in approach and the cues-filtered-out approach. Both theories were developed for CMC environments, yet only some explain self-disclosure and romantic relationship development in online dating. Next, the fact that online dating is initiated through CMC also encompasses enlarged opportunities of online dating profile manipulation. These different forms of deception can potentially harm online daters’ mental and physical health. This chapter gives an in-depth view on all the aforementioned aspects of online dating and will further discuss interpersonal trust development through self-disclosure.


Online dating Romantic relations Cues-filtered-in approach Cues-filtered-out approach 


  1. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, T. L. (2005). Relationships among internet attitudes, internet use, romantic beliefs, and perceptions of online romantic relationships. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 8(6), 521–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antheunis, M. L., Schouten, A. P., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2012). Interactive uncertainty reduction strategies and verbal affection in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 39(6), 757–780. Scholar
  4. Antheunis, M. L., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2010). Getting acquainted through social network sites: Testing a model of online uncertainty reduction and social attraction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 100–109. Scholar
  5. Baker, A. (2002). What makes an online relationship successful? Clues from couples who met in cyberspace. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5(4), 363–375. Scholar
  6. Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 33–48. Scholar
  7. Benotsch, E. G., Snipes, D. J., Martin, A. M., & Bull, S. S. (2013). Sexting, substance use, and sexual risk behavior in young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52(3), 307–313. Scholar
  8. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99–112. Scholar
  9. Best, K., & Delmege, S. (2012). The filtered encounter: Online dating and the problem of filtering through excessive information. Social Semiotics, 22(3), 237. Scholar
  10. Blackhart, G. C., Fitzpatrick, J., & Williamson, J. (2014). Dispositional factors predicting use of online dating sites and behaviors related to online dating. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 113–118. Scholar
  11. Breakwell, G. M., & Millward, L. J. (1997). Sexual self-concept and sexual risk-taking. Journal of Adolescence, 20(1), 29–41. Scholar
  12. Cali, B. E., Coleman, J. M., & Campbell, C. (2013). Stranger danger? women’s self-protection intent and the continuing stigma of online dating. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking, 16(12), 853–857. Scholar
  13. Cheshire, C. (2011). Online trust, trustworthiness, or assurance? Daedalus, 140(4), 49–58. Scholar
  14. Couch, D., Liamputtong, P., & Pitts, M. (2012). What are the real and perceived risks and dangers of online dating? Perspectives from online daters. Health, Risk & Society, 14(7–8), 697–714. Scholar
  15. Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Robets, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420–443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Day, T. (2010). The new digital dating behavior – Sexting: Teens’ explicit love letters: Criminal justice or civil liability. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, 33(1), 1–31. Available at SSRN:
  17. Derlega, V. J., & Chaikin, A. L. (1977). Privacy and self-disclosure in social relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 102–115. Scholar
  18. Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Donn, J. E., & Sherman, R. C. (2002). Attitudes and practices regarding the formation of romantic relationships on the internet. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5(2), 107–123. Scholar
  20. Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415–441. Scholar
  21. Ellison, N. B., Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2012). Profile as promise: A framework for conceptualizing veracity in online dating self-presentations. New Media & Society, 14(1), 45–62. Scholar
  22. Farrer, J., & Gavin, J. (2009). Online dating in Japan: A test of social information processing theory. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 407–412. Scholar
  23. Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating a critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66. Scholar
  24. Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals the role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in internet dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152–177. Scholar
  25. Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Lai, C.-H. (2011). First comes love, then comes Google: An investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research, 38(1), 70–100. Scholar
  26. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life (1st ed.). New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
  27. Guadagno, R. E., Okdie, B. M., & Kruse, S. A. (2012). Dating deception: Gender, online dating, and exaggerated self-presentation. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 642–647. Scholar
  28. Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2009). Putting your best face forward: The accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 367–386. Scholar
  29. Hasinoff, A. A., & Shepherd, T. (2014). Sexting in context: Privacy norms and expectations. International Journal of Communication, 8(0), 24.Google Scholar
  30. Hollenbaugh, E. E., & Everett, M. K. (2013). The effects of anonymity on self-disclosure in blogs: An application of the online disinhibition effect. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(3), 283–302. Scholar
  31. Kang, T., & Hoffman, L. H. (2011). Why would you decide to use an online dating site? Factors that lead to online dating. Communication Research Reports, 28(3), 205–213. Scholar
  32. Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42(3), 595–604. Scholar
  33. Lawson, H. M., & Leck, K. (2006). Dynamics of internet dating. Social Science Computer Review, 24(2), 189–208. Scholar
  34. Lo, S.-K., Hsieh, A.-Y., & Chiu, Y.-P. (2013). Contradictory deceptive behavior in online dating. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1755–1762. Scholar
  35. McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Causes and consequences of social interaction on the internet: A conceptual framework. Media Psychology, 1(3), 249–269. Scholar
  36. McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 9–31. Scholar
  37. Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., Jones, L. M., & Wolak, J. (2012). Prevalence and characteristics of youth sexting: A national study. Pediatrics, 129(1), 13–20. Scholar
  38. Peterson-Iyer, K. (2013). Mobile porn?: Teenage sexting and justice for women. Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics, 33(2), 93–110. Scholar
  39. Rege, A. (2009). What’s love got to do with it? Exploring online dating scams and identity fraud. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3(2), 494.Google Scholar
  40. Reinecke, L., & Trepte, S. (2014). Authenticity and well-being on social network sites: A two-wave longitudinal study on the effects of online authenticity and the positivity bias in SNS communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 95–102. Scholar
  41. Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A., Cummings, C., & Felt, J. (2008). The impact of emotionality and self-disclosure on online dating versus traditional dating. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2124–2157. Scholar
  42. Rostosky, S. S., Dekhtyar, O., Cupp, P. K., & Anderman, E. M. (2008). Sexual self-concept and sexual self-efficacy in adolescents: A possible clue to promoting sexual health? Journal of Sex Research, 45(3), 277–286. Scholar
  43. Rubin, Z. (1975). Disclosing oneself to a stranger: Reciprocity and its limits. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(3), 233–260. Scholar
  44. Schouten, A. P., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2015). An experimental test of processes underlying self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 3(2). Retrieved from
  45. Scott, V. M., Mottarella, K. E., & Lavooy, M. J. (2006). Does virtual intimacy exist? A brief exploration into reported levels of intimacy in online relationships. Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 9(6), 759–761. Scholar
  46. Siibak, A. (2015). Constructing the self through the photo selection – Visual impression management on social networking websites. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 3(1) Retrieved from
  47. Smith, A. (2016). 15% of American adults have used online dating sites or mobile dating apps. Washington, DC: Pew Internet.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2016). 5 facts about online dating. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  49. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32(11), 1492–1512. Scholar
  50. Steiner, P. (1993, July 5). On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. The New Yorker, p. 61.Google Scholar
  51. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. Scholar
  52. Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 317–348. Scholar
  53. Toma, C. L. (2010). Perceptions of trustworthiness online: The role of visual and textual information. Presented at the CSCW ‘10 Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 13–22). New York: ACM.
  54. Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2012). What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 78–97. Scholar
  55. Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1023–1036. Scholar
  56. Van Ouytsel, J., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., & Heirman, W. (2015). The association between adolescent sexting, psychosocial difficulties, and risk behavior: Integrative review. The Journal of School Nursing, 31(1), 54–69. Scholar
  57. Walrave, M., Heirman, W., & Hallam, L. (2014). Under pressure to sext? Applying the theory of planned behaviour to adolescent sexting. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(1), 86–98. Scholar
  58. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction a relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90. Scholar
  59. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. Scholar
  60. Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2538–2557. Scholar
  61. Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  63. Walther, J. B., Slovacek, C. L., & Tidwell, L. C. (2001). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Photographic images in long-term and short-term computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 28(1), 105–134. Scholar
  64. Ward, J. (2016). What are you doing on tinder? Impression management on a matchmaking mobile app. Information, Communication & Society, 20(11), 1644–1659. Retrieved from
  65. Whitty, M. T., & Buchanan, T. (2012). The online romance scam: A serious cybercrime. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(3), 181–183. Scholar
  66. Wildermuth, S. M. (2004). The effects of stigmatizing discourse on the quality of on-line relationships. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(1), 73–84. Scholar
  67. Winter, L. (1988). The role of sexual self-concept in the use of contraceptives. Family Planning Perspectives, 20(3), 123–127. Scholar
  68. Yurchisin, J., Watchravesringkan, K., & Mccabe, D. B. (2005). An exploration of identity re-creation in the context of internet dating. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 33(8), 735–750. Scholar
  69. Zemmels, D. R., & Khey, D. N. (2015). Sharing of digital visual media: Privacy concerns and trust among young people. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(2), 285–302. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lara Hallam
    • 1
  • Michel Walrave
    • 1
  • Charlotte J. S. De Backer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Communication Studies, MIOSUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations