In sum, it appears that online daters might engage in strategic misrepresentation to cultivate positive yet realistic impressions that will not provoke distrust if they were to meet a partner in person (Ellison et al., 2006 ; Toma & Hancock, 2011 ). Despite this growing body of research, considerably little work has attempted to understand the dynamics of online dating once partners shift toward offline interaction. Most daters would be unwilling to engage in a committed romantic relationship without having met their partner FtF (Whitty & Carr, 2006 ), so the lack of research regarding offline interactions between daters is noteworthy. In Whitty's ( 2008 ) study, approximately 68% of online daters indicated that the first FtF meeting functions as a “screening out process” that determines whether a relationship is worth pursuing (p. 1719). Whereas initial online communication helps daters verify basic information and coordinate an offline encounter, the first FtF meeting provides important cues that enable them to establish the veracity and attractiveness of each other's physical world identity. Questions remain, however, regarding which factors affect dater's experience of relational communication upon meeting FtF.

Despite the potential for dishonesty and strategic misrepresentation, most online daters possess the goal of establishing a meaningful offline romantic relationship. Because they anticipate FtF interaction, daters realize that their online “image should be flattering and positive, such that it attracts potential mates, but also realistic, such that it makes it possible to develop and sustain relationships” (Toma & Hancock, 2011 , p. 49). Indeed, 81% of Toma and Hancock's sample misrepresented profile aspects such as their height, weight, and age; however, these misrepresentations were of a very small nature. Similar conclusions were reported by Whitty ( 2008 ), who found that approximately 50% of daters admit to exaggerating or enhancing their qualities in order to appear attractive, yet most discouraged the use of blatant and malicious lies that would generate completely false expectations. Those who engage in blatant misrepresentation were said to hurt their chances at forming an offline romantic relationship.

Online dating profiles provide users with a relatively blank slate to craft their desired image, yet daters must be cautious of the fine line between slightly enhanced self‐presentation and dishonest misrepresentation (Hancock & Toma, 2009 ). Daters in Gibb et al.'s (2006) study acknowledged skepticism that others correctly represent, for instance, their appearance, age, and relationship goals. In fact, the authors concluded that honesty is negatively correlated with online dating self‐presentation such that disclosing honest yet negative information can hinder daters' ability to attract potential partners. According to Heino et al. ( 2010 ), dating profiles are designed to promote positive attributes, so most users account for dishonesty by assuming that potential partners have exaggerated or omitted pieces of information. For example, daters might share a common understanding that someone who lists their body type as being “curvy” is likely attempting to portray their large body size in an honest yet flattering way (Ellison et al., 2011 ).

In addition to disclosing more personal information, online daters often portray idealized versions of their selves by revealing socially desirable aspects of their identity, while strategically omitting their less favorable characteristics (Hancock & Toma, 2009 ). Self‐presentation always involves a degree of perceptual subjectivity because individuals perceive things in ways that reflect their unique experiences and motivations (Leary & Kowalski, 1990 ). That said, online dating sites enable even greater levels of perceptual ambiguity because individuals must utilize text and photo‐based communication to describe aspects of their identity that would be readily apparent in the offline world (Ellison et al., 2011 ). As a result, daters often indicate their identities are somewhat malleable; they can pick and choose which aspects of their past, present, or ideal future selves to display on their profile. Participants in Ellison et al.'s ( 2011 ) study reasoned it was acceptable to omit or exaggerate details “as long as the discrepancy was not too significant and the future self was within the realm of possibility” (p. 52). Indeed, the authors concluded that the profiles serve as a promise, meaning that daters operate under good faith that FtF encounters will not reveal significant differences from a person's profile.

The hyperpersonal perspective (Walther, 1996 ) is frequently employed to examine self‐presentation and impression formation in mediated communication contexts. The perspective suggests that online communicators are able to utilize the asynchronous and anonymonous nature of mediated communication to craft messages that represent selective, and often overly positive, self‐presentation (Walther, 2007 ). As a result, communicators are prone to developing hyperpersonal relationships that reflect increased intimacy relative to FtF communicators. Although not developed with this context in mind, the perspective provides potentially important clues regarding the role of self‐presentation and self‐disclosure in online dating. For example, existing research indicates the perceived anonymity of online dating can lead daters to display an accelerated rate of self‐disclosure relative to FtF couples (Wang & Chang, 2010 ; Wang & Lu, 2007 ). Online daters often utilize profile names or first names only, which provides a sense of disconnection (and security) from their offline identity. This sense of anonymity might provoke users to share more information than they would if interacting in the offline world.

Finkel and colleagues ( 2012 ) summarize that online dating sites provide users with three key services: 1) unprecedented access to potential dating partners, 2) the ability to communicate using mediated channels before determining to meet FtF, and 3) the option of being matched using romantic compatibility algorithms. Sites differ in the specific process through which they seek to facilitate these services. Dating services such as eHarmony.com and Chemistry.com utilize compatibility algorithms that attempt to match customers with other highly compatible users. Sites such as Match.com and PlentyOfFish.com , on the other hand, allow members to search through an entire database of user profiles without the constraints of compatibility algorithms. Regardless of the exact matching process, the sites typically require members to construct a profile by providing textual and photographic indicators that convey personal information (e.g., height, body type, age, occupation, etc.), and identify the qualities they desire in a potential partner. The profile serves as an important first impression for daters who are hoping to catch the attention of potential partners (Heino et al., 2010 ). As a result, most online dating research has focused on understanding issues of self‐presentation and misrepresentation during the creation and interpretation of profiles (Ellison et al., 2011 ; Toma & Hancock, 2011 ).

Conventional notions of romantic relationship initiation hinged upon an individual's chance encounters with other single adults in his/her geographic proximity (e.g., meeting someone at work, a social engagement, or grocery store), or introductions made by members of his/her social network (e.g., being set up by a friend or a family member). Online dating sites break free from these conventions by providing individuals with “increased information about a wider pool of potential partners than usually available in face‐to‐face encounters” (Heino, Ellison, & Gibbs, 2010 , p. 428). As a result, online dating sites are a convenient way for single adults to strategically locate other individuals who are seeking a romantic relationship.

Modality Switching and Online Dating

One of the most unique affordances of online dating is the ability to determine compatibility levels with potential partners through online interaction before deciding whether to meet them FtF (Finkel et al., 2012). One must consider, then, how this type of meeting might alter the outcomes of online dating relationships. One applicable approach for examining the online dating process is through the occurrence of MS. Gibbs and colleagues (2006) point out that daters often “engage in ‘modality switching’ from online to offline communication as they form relationships” (p. 153). Existing literature suggests that this process significantly affects the manner in which partners evaluate their relationships (Ramirez & Wang, 2008; Ramirez & Zhang, 2007). Ramirez and Zhang (2007) investigated whether the timing of a switch influences relational outcomes such as intimacy, task‐social orientation, and social attraction. Drawing upon the hyperpersonal perspective (Walther, 1996) and online partners' tendency to engage in selective self‐presentation, the authors speculated that switches would be most beneficial when they occur before partners have had time to form idealized impressions. Overall, the findings showed that FtF meetings between previously online‐only partners can either enhance or dampen relational outcomes depending upon the timing of the switch. Switching from mediated to FtF early (after 3 weeks) in an association appeared to provide cues that enhanced relational outcomes. Conversely, switching from mediated to FtF late (after 6 weeks) provided cues that contradicted existing impressions and dampened relational outcomes.

MS has also been examined using an expectancy violations theory (Burgoon, 1993) framework to investigate how social information gleaned (i.e., expectedness, valence, and importance) during switches impact social judgments and relational outcomes. Ramirez and Wang (2008) revealed that modality switches can provide information that violates a person's expectations regarding their partner and their potential relationship; however, this effect was also contingent upon the timing of the modality switch. Specifically, individuals in short‐term associations evaluated violations as positive and uncertainty reducing. However, participants in long‐term associations reported violations as negative and uncertainty provoking. Although these results pertain to dyads with the goal of task completion rather than romantic involvement, similar trends might emerge for online daters who switch to a FtF modality.

Existing literature advocates that the concept of MS is quite applicable and “especially relevant to the communication service offered by online dating sites” (Finkel et al., 2012, p. 36). Online dating sites can encourage relationship development and intimacy, but users must carefully navigate the online to offline transition. Consistent with the modality switching perspective, Finkel and colleagues (2012) suggest that the “time frame between the initial CMC interaction and the initial face‐to‐face interaction is likely to be important” (p. 38).The authors speculated that daters would experience the most positive outcomes when they move toward FtF relatively quickly. Indeed, meeting FtF might provide daters with impression‐enhancing information that develops the relationship in a positive manner. However, a tipping point likely exists to the extent that daters who wait too long before meeting FtF may risk developing idealized impressions that will be violated upon meeting FtF. The potential for this is particularly likely in the online dating context, given that daters are prone toward making small and strategic self‐enhancements on their profiles (e.g., Ellison et al., 2006; Toma & Hancock, 2011; Whitty, 2008). Such claims are consistent with the experimental MS research discussed above. In summary, whereas Finkel and colleagues' (2012) identify the online‐to‐offline time gap as an important turning point, as we note below previous MS research provides a potential explanation for its importance (Ramirez & Zhang, 2007; Ramirez & Wang, 2008) by implying a curvilinear relationship between the amount of time that online daters spend communicating and relational communication outcomes upon meeting FtF.

One primary difference between the current study and previous tests of the modality switching perspective is that prior research (e.g., Ramirez & Wang, 2008; Ramirez & Zhang, 2007) was able to experimentally manipulate the timing of the switch. In the present study, it is unfeasible to ask partners to meet FtF at a designated point in time not of their choosing. In order to analyze real‐world online dating relationships, the present study will treat the length of association as a continuous variable. Bridging the short‐term/long‐term dichotomy enables a greater understanding of the association between the length of online communication before FtF interaction, and relational communication indicators upon meeting FtF. Combining the short‐ and long‐term predictions and subsequent findings reported by Ramirez and colleagues (Ramirez & Zhang, 2007; Ramirez & Wang, 2008), it is predicted that this association will display an inverted u‐shaped pattern with an initial positive association that becomes negative over time.

1987 2007 1992 Intimacy encompasses a complex of experiences such as immediacy/affection, similarity/depth, and trust; Dominance focuses on moves to control, persuade, and command others or the relationship; Composure reflects the extent to which partners convey a sense of comfort, relaxation, and calmness; Formality refers to the extent to which messages fit prescribed and proper norms according to socially defined communicator roles; and task‐social orientation focuses on the degree to which messages range from task‐related to personal in nature. The inclusion of multiple dimensions allows for a broader assessment of relational message interpretations and comparison with previous research. H1: The amount of time spent communicating online prior to meeting FtF will be curvilinearly associated with perceptions of relational communication: (a) intimacy, (b) dominance, (c) composure, (d) formality, and (e) task‐social orientation. Given the importance of communication in the management of the online‐to‐offline transition, this inverted u‐shaped pattern should emerge in terms of perceptions of relational communication, or how communicators define themselves, their partner, and the relationship between them (Burgoon & Hale,). Consistent with previous research on CMC and MS (e.g., Ramirez & Zhang,; Walther,), relational communication in the present study is conceptualized as multidimensional encompassing several distinct themes upon which partners interpret messages including:encompasses a complex of experiences such as immediacy/affection, similarity/depth, and trust;focuses on moves to control, persuade, and command others or the relationship;reflects the extent to which partners convey a sense of comfort, relaxation, and calmness;refers to the extent to which messages fit prescribed and proper norms according to socially defined communicator roles; andfocuses on the degree to which messages range from task‐related to personal in nature. The inclusion of multiple dimensions allows for a broader assessment of relational message interpretations and comparison with previous research.

When online daters meet in person after a period of online interaction, one of their goals is to determine the viability of the potential relationship (Whitty, 2008). Predicted outcome value (POV) theory holds that the primary goal of such interactions is to derive a forecast of a relationship's potential to provide present and future rewards (Sunnafrank, 1986; Ramirez, Sunnafrank, & Goei, 2010). Individuals who anticipate they will interact with a partner at a later date are more likely to engage in information‐seeking processes that enables estimation of the POV of future encounters (Sunnafrank & Ramirez, 2004). Those who do not anticipate future partner contact, on the other hand, are unlikely to exert effort to develop the relationship further. Such an explanation is also consistent with social information processing theory and the hyperpersonal perspective (Walther, 1996), which identify the anticipation of future interaction as a necessary condition for developing relationships and exaggerated expectations.

These results appear to translate well into an online dating context, as the environment affords users many opportunities to reduce uncertainty and seek information through online communication and observation. Indeed, Gibbs and colleagues (2006) report that anticipated FtF interaction is positively associated with self‐disclosure in online dating. More specifically, daters begin the information acquisition process by perusing the photographs and narratives that potential partners share on their profile. They might establish contact to assess potential compatibility, and ultimately set up a FtF meeting to determine the viability of an offline relationship (for a review, see Finkel et al., 2012). Daters who choose to meet FtF likely see the potential for a positive POV, however, the first FtF meeting provides an immense amount of information that might enhance or diminish their outcome forecast about their partner.

When attempting to determine a POV forecast during initial FtF interactions, online daters will likely compare social and visual information gained about each other online to that experienced in person (Gibbs et al, 2006). Information about perceived inconsistencies between attributes claimed online and those inferred in person would be sought. Partners who meet FtF with very little online interaction likely lack the basic background information that would provide fodder for developing the relationship. Due to this limited amount of message exchange, such partners likely possess underdeveloped partner expectations, engaged in little idealization, and should be able to incorporate the new social and visual information into their perceptions thus maintaining a positive POV. However, partners who develop idealized perceptions due to a prolonged online communication process may have their expectations violated in a manner that hinders their POV (Ramirez & Wang, 2008). Moreover, Sunnafrank (1986) argues that POV is a product and reflection of the communication that occurs between partners and thus, should mimic the pattern predicted of the relational dimensions in the present study.