New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Don't Hide Your Identity on Online Dating Sites

Anonymous browsing may backfire

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Online dating provides opportunities we do not have in the real world, like scanning 100 potential sweethearts in an hour. But some of these advantages may actually be drawbacks. Anonymous browsing, for instance, allows users to look at people's profiles without the target knowing they got checked out—which can mean freedom from drawing unwanted messages. Yet it also erases any breadcrumbs that might lead to love. A paper published online in February in Management Science finds that on the whole, this feature backfires.

The researchers selected 100,000 users of a large online dating site and gave half of them the ability to browse anonymously, which usually costs extra. They became less inhibited and more likely to look at people of the same sex or a different race. “We thought the disinhibition would translate into more matches,” says Jui Ramaprasad, a professor of information systems at McGill University and one of the paper's four authors. But women with this ability actually made fewer matches because they did not leave so-called weak signals of interest that might lead the other party to follow up. The simple notification that a particular person perused your profile is often enough to get a conversation started. Anonymous browsing did not affect men's matches as much, because the men were already uninhibited—they messaged individuals who interested them. Women, however, are less likely in general to make the first move and therefore depend more on sending weak signals to invite flirtation.

Further, what secret scanners lost in quantity they did not gain in quality. The average romantic appeal of their matches, as rated by other users, was no different from those of nonanonymous users. In the end, daters may be better off retaining the digital equivalent of exchanging furtive glances at a bar.

SA Mind Vol 27 Issue 4This article was published with the title “To Hide or Not to Hide” in SA Mind Vol. 27 No. 4 (), p. 9
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0716-9b

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe