Way to obtain Online Dating Sites Pages The test of dating pages had been drawn from two major websites that are dating. We identified these sites making use of the search engines ( ag e.g., Bing, Bing, Yahoo, Ask.com) aided by the key term “online dating” along with reports from Experian Hitwise (a customer behavior company) and Bing Zeitgeist (which provides most popular search queries in certain year). Selection requirements restricted sites to your United States and excluded internet sites that catered to a “niche” audience (for example., older grownups, sexual minorities, spiritual denomination, extramarital affairs, “speed dating, ” “hookups, ” or relationships of a solely intimate nature). We additionally restricted the research to dating web sites that enable users to find prospective lovers (instead of assigning a small variety of lovers; e.g., eHarmony.com, Chemistry.com). After exclusions, two popular internet sites stayed. There is totally free for making a profile on either web site, but among the web sites charged to get in touch having a dating partner that is potential. Users finished an optional response that is free (in other words., “About Me” or “in my Words”) for which they had written any such thing they opted for. The guidelines to produce the response that is free differed one of the web sites. The website that is first users to publish a quick description of who they really are and what they’re in search of, whereas the next site informed users that the free reaction description would represent a “first impression” for prospective lovers. In this research, the amount of terms within the free reaction ranged from 30 to 1,256 (M = 146.18, SD = 128.40). We would not gather pages that included less than 30 terms; 220 prospective profiles from the sampling that is randomdescribed in individuals) had been excluded as a result of reactions with less than 30 terms. Individuals The research included 4,000 pages, 2,000 sampled from all the internet dating web sites utilizing random quota sampling without replacement. Within each web site, we built-up 1,000 pages from heterosexual men and 1,000 pages from heterosexual females. Users look for profiles via geographical location, age, and gender filters. To make sure a dispersion that is geographic of, we selected equal amounts of pages from five major urban centers including metropolitan, residential district, and rural areas: l. A., Denver, Chicago, Atlanta, and New York. We arbitrarily selected zip codes from all the five areas to find pages. Within each zip rule, for every sex, we then arbitrarily chosen profiles among four age ranges: very very early young adulthood (aged 18–29 years; n = 1,000; M = 25.28, SD = 3.17), late young adulthood/early midlife (aged 30–49 years; n = 1,000; M = 36.63, SD = 5.61), belated midlife (aged 50–64 years; n = 1,000; M = 55.02, SD = 3.99), and older grownups (aged significantly more than 65 years; n = 1,000; M = 69.02, SD = 4.29). We utilized these stratifications in order to guarantee an age that is full of dating pages in sampling. As the older grownups team could include as much as three decades, we managed age being a variable that is continuous than being a grouping adjustable in analyses. From each profile, we removed: gender, age, ethnicity, additionally the “About Me” or “In my words that are own free reaction part. To make sure privacy of profile article writers, we would not get extra demographic information (e.g., training, spiritual preferences, income) that may act as distinguishing information. The sampling technique is illustrated in Supplementary Appendix the. The test ranged in age from 18 to 95 years. A separate t-test unveiled no difference between mean age for ladies (M = 46.46, SD = 17.42) and guys (M = 46.52, SD = 17.31). The break down of ethnicity into the test had been 70% White/Caucasian, 11% Black/African American, 7% Hispanic/Latino, 2% Asian, and 10% blended race/other. Profile content We used the software that is LIWC evaluate the information regarding the pages. This software determines the frequency and proportions of certain kinds of terms in just a text file. The LIWC system compares each term of the text file having a interior dictionary of more than 4,500 terms assigned to term categories. This research drew on 11 established LIWC categories: first-person single pronouns, first-person plural pronouns, buddies, household, work, success, cash, wellness, sex, good feeling, and negative feeling. Dining Table 1 contains instance words in each one of the category that is LIWCfor more information regarding these codes, see LIWC, 2007). Mean portion of reactions suitable Each Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) Category by Age Mean portion of reactions suitable Each Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) Category by Age LIWC category. Total test aged 18–95 years (letter = 4,000). Young adulthood aged 18–29 years (letter = 1,000). Early midlife aged 30–49 years (letter = 1,000). Belated midlife aged 50–64 years (letter = 1,000). Belated life aged 65 and older (letter = 1,000). First-person plural (we, us, our) 0.34 (0.78) 0.19 (0.54) 0.33 (0.77) 0.41 (0.80) 0.44 (0.92) Family (son, spouse, aunt) 0.57 (1.01) 0.51 (0.95) 0.61 (1.03) 0.50 (0.92) 0.65 (1.13) Friends (buddy, pal, neighbor) 0.62 (0.97) 0.51(0.90) 0.64 (1.02) 0.62 (0.92) 0.69 (1.00) wellness (ache, medical practitioner, workout) 0.91 (1.14) 0.72 (1.05) 0.87 (1.09) 1.02 (1.20) 1.03 (1.18) good emotion (love, sweet, good) 10.44 (4.72) 9.09 (4.34) 10.13 (4.60) 11.26 (4.87) 11.30 (4.69) First-person single (we, me personally, mine) 9.01 (3.64) 10.55 (3.44) 9.27 (3.44) 8.39 (3.47) 7.82 (3.63) Work (task, majors, employer) 1.87 (1.90) 2.15 (2.08) 1.80 (1.83) 1.62 (1.70) 1.89 (1.94) Achievement (earn, hero, win) 1.80 (1.58) 1.94 (1.70) 1.95 (1.64) 1.76 (1.56) 1.56 (1.39) cash (review, money, owe) 0.51 (0.87) 0.45 (0.81) 0.52 (0.89) 0.49 (0.85) 0.58 (0.94) Attractiveness (hot, gorgeous, precious) 0.38 (0.71) 0.38 (0.73) 0.38 (0.75) 0.39 (0.69) 0.36 (0.66) intimate (arouse, horny, intercourse) 1.46 (1.70) 1.55 (1.70) 1.42 (1.62) 1.51 (1.79) 1.37 (1.70) Negative feeling (hurt, ugly, nasty) 0.81 (1.13) 1.07 (1.30) 0.91 (1.19) 0.69 (1.02) 0.59 (0.94) We additionally created a group of terms for attractiveness perhaps perhaps not for sale in established categories that are LIWC. We accompanied procedures for construction of LIWC groups (Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010) by producing a list that is comprehensive of from dictionaries, thesauruses, questionnaires from past research, and terms produced by the investigation team. Then, we selected 25 terms most representative of attractiveness centered on look in thesauruses and participant responses ( e.g., sweet, good-looking, handsome, hot). The attractiveness category had been nearly totally distinct from the intimate category, with only 1 overlapping term (sexy). Examples for the attractiveness category may also be found in dining Table 1; when it comes to complete set of terms when you look at the attractiveness category, see Supplementary dining Table 1 )

Way to obtain Online Dating Sites Pages The test of dating pages had been drawn from two major websites that are dating. We identified these sites making use of the search engines ( ag e.g., Bing, Bing, Yahoo, Ask.com) aided by the key term “online dating” along with reports from Experian Hitwise (a customer behavior company) and Bing Zeitgeist (which provides most popular search queries in certain year). Selection requirements restricted sites to your United States and excluded internet sites that catered to a “niche” audience (for example., older grownups, sexual minorities, spiritual denomination, extramarital affairs, “speed dating, ” “hookups, ” or relationships of a solely intimate nature). We additionally restricted the research to dating web sites that enable users to find prospective lovers (instead of assigning a small variety of lovers; e.g., eHarmony.com, Chemistry.com). After exclusions, two popular internet sites stayed. There is totally free for making a profile on either web site, but among the web sites charged to get in touch having a dating partner that is potential. Users finished an optional response that is free (in other words., “About Me” or “in my Words”) for which they had written any such thing they opted for. The guidelines to produce the response that is free differed one of the web sites. The website that is first users to publish a quick description of who they really are and what they’re in search of, whereas the next site informed users that the free reaction description would represent a “first impression” for prospective lovers. In this research, the amount of terms within the free reaction ranged from 30 to 1,256 (M = 146.18, SD = 128.40). We would not gather pages that included less than 30 terms; 220 prospective profiles from the sampling that is randomdescribed in individuals) had been excluded as a result of reactions with less than 30 terms. Individuals The research included 4,000 pages, 2,000 sampled from all the internet dating web sites utilizing random quota sampling without replacement. Within each web site, we built-up 1,000 pages from heterosexual men and 1,000 pages from heterosexual females. Users look for profiles via geographical location, age, and gender filters. To make sure a dispersion that is geographic of, we selected equal amounts of pages from five major urban centers including metropolitan, residential district, and rural areas: l. A., Denver, Chicago, Atlanta, and New York. We arbitrarily selected zip codes from all the five areas to find pages. Within each zip rule, for every sex, we then arbitrarily chosen profiles among four age ranges: very very early young adulthood (aged 18–29 years; n = 1,000; M = 25.28, SD = 3.17), late young adulthood/early midlife (aged 30–49 years; n = 1,000; M = 36.63, SD = 5.61), belated midlife (aged 50–64 years; n = 1,000; M = 55.02, SD = 3.99), and older grownups (aged significantly more than 65 years; n = 1,000; M = 69.02, SD = 4.29). We utilized these stratifications in order to guarantee an age that is full of dating pages in sampling. As the older grownups team could include as much as three decades, we managed age being a variable that is continuous than being a grouping adjustable in analyses. From each profile, we removed: gender, age, ethnicity, additionally the “About Me” or “In my words that are own free reaction part. To make sure privacy of profile article writers, we would not get extra demographic information (e.g., training, spiritual preferences, income) that may act as distinguishing information. The sampling technique is illustrated in Supplementary Appendix the. The test ranged in age from 18 to 95 years. A separate t-test unveiled no difference between mean age for ladies (M = 46.46, SD = 17.42) and guys (M = 46.52, SD = 17.31). The break down of ethnicity into the test had been 70% White/Caucasian, 11% Black/African American, 7% Hispanic/Latino, 2% Asian, and 10% blended race/other. Profile content We used the software that is LIWC evaluate the information regarding the pages. This software determines the frequency and proportions of certain kinds of terms in just a text file. The LIWC system compares each term of the text file having a interior dictionary of more than 4,500 terms assigned to term categories. This research drew on 11 established LIWC categories: first-person single pronouns, first-person plural pronouns, buddies, household, work, success, cash, wellness, sex, good feeling, and negative feeling. Dining Table 1 contains instance words in each one of the category that is LIWCfor more information regarding these codes, see LIWC, 2007). Mean portion of reactions suitable Each Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) Category by Age Mean portion of reactions suitable Each Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) Category by Age LIWC category. Total test aged 18–95 years (letter = 4,000). Young adulthood aged 18–29 years (letter = 1,000). Early midlife aged 30–49 years (letter = 1,000). Belated midlife aged 50–64 years (letter = 1,000). Belated life aged 65 and older (letter = 1,000). First-person plural (we, us, our) 0.34 (0.78) 0.19 (0.54) 0.33 (0.77) 0.41 (0.80) 0.44 (0.92) Family (son, spouse, aunt) 0.57 (1.01) 0.51 (0.95) 0.61 (1.03) 0.50 (0.92) 0.65 (1.13) Friends (buddy, pal, neighbor) 0.62 (0.97) 0.51(0.90) 0.64 (1.02) 0.62 (0.92) 0.69 (1.00) wellness (ache, medical practitioner, workout) 0.91 (1.14) 0.72 (1.05) 0.87 (1.09) 1.02 (1.20) 1.03 (1.18) good emotion (love, sweet, good) 10.44 (4.72) 9.09 (4.34) 10.13 (4.60) 11.26 (4.87) 11.30 (4.69) First-person single (we, me personally, mine) 9.01 (3.64) 10.55 (3.44) 9.27 (3.44) 8.39 (3.47) 7.82 (3.63) Work (task, majors, employer) 1.87 (1.90) 2.15 (2.08) 1.80 (1.83) 1.62 (1.70) 1.89 (1.94) Achievement (earn, hero, win) 1.80 (1.58) 1.94 (1.70) 1.95 (1.64) 1.76 (1.56) 1.56 (1.39) cash (review, money, owe) 0.51 (0.87) 0.45 (0.81) 0.52 (0.89) 0.49 (0.85) 0.58 (0.94) Attractiveness (hot, gorgeous, precious) 0.38 (0.71) 0.38 (0.73) 0.38 (0.75) 0.39 (0.69) 0.36 (0.66) intimate (arouse, horny, intercourse) 1.46 (1.70) 1.55 (1.70) 1.42 (1.62) 1.51 (1.79) 1.37 (1.70) Negative feeling (hurt, ugly, nasty) 0.81 (1.13) 1.07 (1.30) 0.91 (1.19) 0.69 (1.02) 0.59 (0.94) We additionally created a group of terms for attractiveness perhaps perhaps not for sale in established categories that are LIWC. We accompanied procedures for construction of LIWC groups (Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010) by producing a list that is comprehensive of from dictionaries, thesauruses, questionnaires from past research, and terms produced by the investigation team. Then, we selected 25 terms most representative of attractiveness centered on look in thesauruses and participant responses ( e.g., sweet, good-looking, handsome, hot). The attractiveness category had been nearly totally distinct from the intimate category, with only 1 overlapping term (sexy). Examples for the attractiveness category may also be found in dining Table 1; when it comes to complete set of terms when you look at the attractiveness category, see Supplementary dining Table 1 )