image: Prof. Gurit Birnbaum, a sexuality researcher at the Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology at Reichman University
Credit: Gilad Kavalerchik
New research led by Prof. Gurit Birnbaum, a researcher of sexuality in close relationships at Reichman University’s Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology, and conducted in collaboration with her graduate student Kobi Zholtack and Prof. Harry Reis of the University of Rochester, examines how sexualized online dating profiles shape viewers’ perceptions and relationship intentions.
In today’s crowded and highly competitive dating market, many people want to stand out. And a sexy photo can do that fast. After all, photos are the gatekeepers of dating apps: if someone’s profile picture doesn’t catch your eye, swiping left is almost automatic. You may never even get to their personality.
But the same strategy may come with unintended costs.
Potential partners may come to see the profile owner less as a full person and more as a means of fulfilling a fantasy. They may assume that a sexy body is all that person has to offer, perceiving them as less intelligent or interesting than they really are. They may also infer that the profile owner is better suited for a short-term encounter than for a serious, long-term relationship.
The researchers conducted three studies examining whether sexualized profiles influence how people perceive the person behind the profile—and, importantly, why and when sexualization can backfire.
The first study: Do sexualized profiles reduce relationship appeal?
Single participants viewed dating profiles that were either sexualized (revealing clothing, flirtatious poses or expressions) or non-sexualized (modest clothing, natural poses and expressions). The researchers matched the photos on attractiveness, lighting, and angle, so the only difference was the sexualized presentation itself.
After viewing the profiles, participants rated how they saw the profile owner. For example, how much they were seen as a “person” versus a sexual object, whether they seemed like a good long-term partner, and what kind of relationship they seemed to be looking for. Participants also reported whether they themselves would be interested in a long-term relationship with that person.
The results were clear. Sexualized profiles were judged more negatively and elicited significantly less interest in long-term relationships. In other words, the participants might have been interested in looking, but they weren’t interested in staying.
At the same time, the first study had an important limitation: the sexualized and non-sexualized profiles featured different people. This left open the possibility that participants were responding not only to the level of sexualization but also to the specific individuals shown.
The second study: Why is long-term interest lower for people with sexualized profiles?
To address that limitation and better understand the mechanism involved, the second study moved beyond static photographs. Participants watched a short video introduction featuring the same person in both the sexualized and non-sexualized versions. This mattered because people weren’t just reacting to a face, charm, or a “vibe.” They were reacting primarily to how that person presented themselves.
Again, the pattern held: people with sexualized profiles were seen as less suitable long-term partners, and that helped explain why participants were less interested in a meaningful relationship with them.
The third study: Can your bio soften the negative effect of a sexualized profile?
Finally, the researchers tested whether it is possible to get the best of both worlds: can a sexy photo be balanced by a more human bio that shows concern for others?
Participants saw profiles that varied in both the photo (sexualized vs. non-sexualized) and the written description (communal vs. neutral). This allowed the researchers to test whether signaling caring qualities and depth can soften the negative assumptions that a sexualized photo sometimes triggers.
To illustrate, a “communal” (or caring) self-description included statements like:
“I love meeting up with friends, taking sunset beach walks, volunteering with the elderly, and assisting them on a weekly basis.”
A neutral self-description included statements like:
“I like the beach, going to parties, and just enjoying life.”
The meaning of a sexy photo depends on the rest of the profile and on who is doing the judging.
For men viewing women’s profiles, a warm bio was reassuring. It signaled that behind the sexy photo was someone capable of a real partnership.
For women viewing men’s profiles, however, it could backfire.
Women usually have more to lose from a bad dating decision. When they saw a man with a shirtless, sexualized photo paired with a sensitive bio about “volunteering with the elderly,” they didn’t buy it. It could feel like a mixed signal. The incongruence made them suspicious of his true intentions.
Prof. Gurit Birnbaum said: “In a crowded dating market, people use what gets them noticed. But getting attention is only the beginning. What happens next depends on how people interpret your overall profile and whether it invites them to see a body or a whole person. Presenting yourself purely as sexy can sabotage your chances of attracting long-term partners. You can win attention in a second and still lose the chance to be seen for who you are. You don’t have to wear a sexy outfit to be desirable. The goal isn’t to be less sexy; it’s to let your whole self come through first.”
References:
Birnbaum, G. E., Zholtack, K., & Reis, H. T. (2026). Selling yourself short: How sexualized online dating profiles affect viewers’ perceptions and relationship intentions. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 20(2), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2026-2-3
Article Title
Selling yourself short: How sexualized online dating profiles affect viewers’ perceptions and relationship intentions.