Predicting Gender from Online Dating Self-Introductions Using Machine Learning, Deep Learning, and DistilBERT

Lionel F. Gonzalez Casanova, Wen-Ju Chen, Hsi-Sheng Wei

Abstract


This study investigates a novel approach to automated gender classification in online dating profiles by comparing models that span traditional machine learning, deep learning, and transformer-based architectures. The dataset consists of self-introduction essays from publicly accessible repositories and enriched with psychological features (LIWC), lexical features (bag-of-words), and contextual representations (raw text). The primary objective is to evaluate predictive performance, robustness, and computational cost across these modeling strategies and to assess their trade-offs. A comprehensive preprocessing pipeline was implemented, including missing-value handling, text cleaning, LIWC feature extraction, Bag-of-Words vectorization, one-hot encoding of categorical variables, and class-imbalance mitigation through random oversampling. Text augmentation using synonym replacement was subsequently applied to increase data diversity while maintaining realistic linguistic patterns. Stratified five-fold cross-validation was used for traditional models and LIWC-only deep learning experiments, and StratifiedKFold (k = 5) was applied to LIWC + BoW configurations to ensure balanced splits. DistilBERT was fine-tuned on raw essay data using an 80/20 train–test split under GPU memory and batch-size constraints. Across three runs, DistilBERT achieved an average testing accuracy of 91% ± 1%, with precision, recall, F1-score, and ROC–AUC indicating balanced performance. A GRU trained on LIWC+BoW features reached 88.62% ± 0.53% accuracy, offering competitive results at substantially lower computational cost. An MLP trained solely on LIWC features provided a stable and interpretable baseline. Confusion matrices showed balanced predictions between male and female classes, highlighting the importance of feature representation and model selection. Overall, the findings demonstrate clear trade-offs between computational demand and semantic modeling capability. These results contribute to ongoing research on gender identification and guide future work on fairness, robustness, and explainability in AI-assisted user profiling. The study also underscores practical benefits for automated analysis of unstructured text in social and psychological applications, while recognizing ethical considerations related to non-binary and gender-fluid individuals.


Keywords


Gender Classification; Online Dating; LIWC; Bag-of-Words; XGBoost; GRU; MLP; DistilBERT; Deep Learning; Natural Language Processing

Full Text:

PDF

References


E. A. Vogels and C. McClain. Key findings about online dating in the u.s. https://www.pewresearch.org/short- reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/, 2023. Accessed: February 15, 2024.

J. Mills. Paedophile abused 51 boys by pretending to be teenage girl online. https://metro.co.uk/2020/11/23/paedophile-abused-51-boys-by-pretending-to-be-teenage-girl-online- 13641246/, 2020. Accessed: February 15, 2024.

J. A. Snyder and K. A. Golladay. Risk factors and characteristics of catfishing fraud victimization. Deviant Behavior, 2024. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2024.2416071. Advance online publication.

M. Hunt. Teenage boys’ mental health and suicide linked to sextortion scams. USA To- day, 2025. URL https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/healthwellness/2025/02/25/ teenageboysmentalhealthsuicidesextortionscams/78258882007/. February 25.

Jennifer Coates. Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language. Routledge, third edition edition, 2004.

M. J. Lerchenmueller, O. Sorenson, and A. B. Jena. Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study. BMJ, 2019.

A. Demzik, P. Filippou, C. Chew, A. Deal, E. Mercer, S. Mahajan, M. E. Wallen, H. J. Tan, and A. B. Smith. Gender-based differences in urology residency applicant personal statements. ElSEVIER, 150:2–8, 2021.

Y. R. Tausczik and J. W. Pennebaker. The psychological meaning of words: Liwc and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1):24–54, 2010.

M. L. Newman, C. J. Groom, L. D. Handelman, and J. W. Pennebaker. Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45(3):211–236, 2008.

S. Li, A. L. Fant, D. M. McCarthy, D. Miller, J. Craig, and A. Kontrick. Gender differences in language of standardized letter of evaluation narratives for emergency medicine residency applicants. AEM Education and Training, 1(4):334–339, 2017. doi: 10.1002/aet2.10057.

G. Park, D. B. Yaden, H. A. Schwartz, M. L. Kern, J. C. Eichstaedt, M. Kosinski, D. Stillwell, L. H. Ungar, and M. E. Seligman. Women are warmer but no less assertive than men: Gender and language on facebook. PloS One, 11(5):e0155885, 2016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155885.

T. Isbister, L. Kaati, and K. Cohen. Gender classification with data independent features in multiple languages. In 2017 European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference (EISIC), pages 54–60, 2017.

C. Fink, J. Kopecky, and M. Morawski. Inferring gender from the content of tweets: A region specific example. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 6(1):459–462, 2021. doi: 10.1609/ icwsm.v6i1.14320.

N. K. Alhuqail. Author identification based on nlp. European Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology, 9(1):1–26, 2021.

A. Safdar, O. Akhter, O. Inayat, and A. Khalid. Using bag-of-words and psycho-linguistic features for maponsms. In FIRE (Working Notes), pages 247–256, 2018.

P. Tu¨fekci and M. Bektas¸ Ko¨sesoy. Biological gender identification in turkish news text using deep learning models. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 83(17):50669–50689, 2024.

T. Dalyan, H. Ayral, and O¨ . O¨ zdemir. A comprehensive study of learning approaches for author gender identifi- cation. Information Technology and Control, 51(3):429–445, 2022.

Wen-Ting Cheng, Raghavan Chandramouli, and K.P. Subbalakshmi. Author gender identification from text.

Digital Investigation, 8(1):78–88, 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.diin.2011.04.002.

T. K. Koch, P. Romero, and C. Stachl. Age and gender in language, emoji, and emoticon usage in instant messages. Computers in Human Behavior, 126:106990, 2022.

A. Afzal, F. Haider, and F. Nasim. Advancements in gender identification using transformer models in social media texts. Al-Aasar, 2(2):204–220, 2025. URL https://al-aasar.com/index.php/Journal/ article/view/287.

P. Schwarzenberg and A. Figueroa. Textual pre-trained models for gender identification across community question-answering members. IEEE Access, 11:3983–3995, 2023. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3235735.

Z. Movahedi Nia, A. Ahmadi, B. Mellado, J. Wu, J. Orbinski, A. Asgary, and J. D. Kong. Twitter-based gender recognition using transformers. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 20(9):15962–15981, 2023. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023711.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.47738/jads.v7i1.979

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



Barcode

Journal of Applied Data Sciences

ISSN:2723-6471 (Online)
Publisher:Bright Publisher
Website:http://bright-journal.org/JADS
Email:taqwa@amikompurwokerto.ac.id (principal contact)
  support@bright-journal.org (technical issues)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0