When discussing deception in online dating environments there are a number of concerns that are raised. First it is important to understand who engages in deceptive behaviors online and why. Understanding who participates in deception and their motivation can help prevent website and app users from becoming victims. Next it is important to consider what makes a person susceptible to deception and how someone can potentially recognize signs of deception in order to reduce the number of deceptive interactions. This page seeks to discuss some of the available research regarding deception on traditional online dating websites (e.g. Match.com®) and Location-Based Real-Time Dating (LBRTD) apps (e.g. Tinder®).
Generally, internet users tend to be suspicious of how honest other users are with their information. Television shows and news reports have sensationalized the thought of someone going online and creating a fake persona with the purpose of deceiving other users to either cause distress, personal gain, or because of personal insecurities. Television shows like the popular MTV series Catfish, have made these types of deceptions seem much more common than they actually are. The act of catfishing and impersonation of the magnitude depicted on those shows are actually relatively uncommon. However, according to Drouin, Millerm Wehle, and Hernandez (2016) there are some subtler but more common types of impersonation that occur online that include: gender switching; age deception; and, “identity concealment, where one hides part or all of his true identity,” (Drouin et al., 2017, p. 135).
While complete impersonation is generally rare, it is not uncommon for people on the internet to present idealized versions of themselves online. In the context of online dating, “51% of online daters…admitted misrepresenting themselves online with regard to their looks, relationship status, age, weight, socio-economic status, or interests,” (Drouin et al., 2017, p.135). When people misrepresent these parts of themselves it is done as a way to may oneself appear more attractive but the level to which they exaggerate or misrepresent themselves varies based on context. According to Drouin et al. (2017), researchers found that online daters whose ultimate goal is to meet a dating target in person will only slightly misrepresent themselves in comparison to those who do not expect to ever meet their suitor. This suggests that the more anonymity a person perceives them self to have the more likely they are to misrepresent themselves in a more idealized way. The specifics of what gets embellished varies from person to person, however, men tend to exaggerate their height while women under report weight and post less accurate/outdated photos (Toma & Hancock, 2012, p. 79).
The next thing to consider is the motivation behind lying online. According to Drouin et al. (2017), lying and deceptive behavior is often correlated with higher scored on Machiavellianism (characterized by manipulation and deceit), and psychopathy (characterized by selfishness, callous behavior, and low levels of remorse). Additionally, extraverts are less likely to lie due to the relational ramifications that could result from lying. While personality traits can be predictors of lying behavior, researchers have also taken to simply asking people why they lie online. The most common response is that most people believe or assume that others online exaggerate details about themselves so it is expected that not every detail on a profile is completely accurate (Drouin et al., 2017, p. 136). Upon conducting their study, Drouin et al. (2017) found that their participants reported, “lying online was to make themselves look better or be more attractive in some way, followed by safety or privacy concerns, mutuality/fantasy/role play, and anonymity,” (Drouin et al., 2017, p. 39).
The most negative concept to consider when talking about who and why individuals engage in deception in online dating environments is trolling. A study done by March, Grieve, Marrington, and Jonason (2017), “sought to explore the online antisocial behavior of ‘trolling,’” (p. 139) which they defined as, “communication online with the intention of being provocative, offensive, or menacing, in an attempt to trigger conflict and cause victims distress for the trolls own amusement,” (p. 140). Trolling is important to consider when discussing deception because a troll, someone who participates in trolling behaviors, often uses deception as a key part of their process. A troll will often set up a profile that is initially inviting and positive in order to draw potential victims in by appealing to their interests and using positive language. Then once a victim matches with the troll’s profile, the troll will open a line of communication that may start off positive but quickly shift to harassment.
According to the March et al. (2017) study, “roughly 57% of women and 21% of men who have used online dating sites and LBRTD apps report being harassed, and LBRTD apps produce higher rates of harassment in comparison to online dating sites,” these high levels of reports have resulted in researchers looking into why individuals participate in trolling behaviors (March et al., 2017, p. 140). While previous research regarding trolling has focused on online activity in general or traditional online dating websites, March et al. (2017) focused specifically on LBRTD apps and in addition to considering the sex differences in trolling behaviors, they also looked into factors such as dark personality traits (e.g. narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism), and impulsivity in order to provide a more comprehensive analysis. Based on the available research, “it was predicted that gender (specifically male) and higher levels of Dark Tetrad traits would predict higher engagement in LBRTD app trolling behaviours, with dysfunctional impulsivity explaining further variance,” (March et al., 2017, p. 140).
Upon performing their study, the results offered some contradicting findings from what was expected. In contrast to other research that suggested that men participate in trolling behaviors more than women, March et al. (2017) found that there were no significant sex differences in trolling on LBRTD apps. It was believed that the comparable scores between genders in this study could have been due to potentially, “elevated levels of psychoticism and sadism [in the women in this study], traits that have been found to be typically higher in men,” (p. 141). However, the March et al. (2017) study replicated these sex differences in psychoticism and sadism suggesting that these traits could not account for the higher rates of trolling behaviors. This inconsistency with other research regarding online behaviors suggested that, “LBRTD applications are an online platform where men and women engage in trolling behaviours equally,” (March et al., 2017, p. 141). However, as the March et al. study is the first of its kind, “interpretations of men and women’s equal trolling scores is speculative,” but, “this inconsistency may provide support for the premise that men and women’s trolling behaviours may be context-dependent,” (March et al., 2017, p. 141-142).
Consistent with other research, March et al. (2017) found that, “sadism and psychopathy were both associated with more trolling behaviours,” while, “trait narcissism and Machiavellianism were not found to be predictive of trolling behaviours on LBRTD apps,” (March et al., 2017, p. 142). It was also found that dysfunctional impulsivity could also be used to predict trolling behavior but due to impulsivity being considered a key element in trait psychopathy March et al. (2017) went on to, “explore possible moderation effects of psychopathy on dysfunctional impulsivity,” (p. 142). It was found that psychopathy did significantly moderate dysfunctional impulsivity and trolling behaviors for those with medium to high levels of trait psychopath, suggesting that, “dysfunctional impulsivity may positively predict engaging in trolling behaviours on LBRTD apps, but only if the individual had medium to high trait psychopathy,” (March et al., 2017, p. 142).
Finally, March et al. (2017) went on to say the results of their study suggest, “individuals who engage in trolling behaviours on LBRTS applications may enjoy inflicting psychological and emotional harm on others,” (p. 142). With other research indicating that the psychological outcomes of harassment online are the same as those offline, it is important to be aware of trolls online. While not every fake profile online is that of a troll, trolls purposefully seek to cause distress to victims. In order to reduce the likelihood of becoming a victim of trolling it is important to know how to recognize deception online before opening a line of dialogue.
Before discussing how to recognize deception in online dating profiles, it is important to note that extensive research has been done to support the notion that people are generally terrible at detecting deception despite believing themselves to be adept at it. A number of reasons for this inadequacy have been suggested. The truth bias is the belief that humans are cooperative and thus all approach social interactions with trust. Next, a misguided reliance on nonverbal cues because people believe that when a person lies they may act differently than they would otherwise despite these cues not actually proving to be an accurate way to gauge deception. This leads to a disregard for baseline information which requires a person to have a well-rounded understanding of a person’s baseline behavior in order to be able to detect changes (Toma, 2017, p. 426). Online, it has been found that despite reporting suspicion of trustworthiness of other online users, people still tend to be affected by truth bias. Toma and Hancock (2012) also found that the judges in their study often made judgments based on, “linguistic cues that are consistent with credibility assessments, rather than cues actually associated with deception,” (Toma & Hancock. 2012, p. 94).
This leads to the question: what linguistic cues should someone look for when assessing online profiles? While Toma and Hancock (2012) acknowledge that the findings of their study are merely correlational, using a computer program to analyze open ended responses, they were able to find some similarities between profiles where the owner had reported lying in some capacity. First, the two found that, “online daters tended to avoid the topics on which they had lied in their profiles,” (p. 86). This meant that if someone had lied about either their weight or appearance they often avoided information that could potentially reveal anything about their body size. In order to compensate for this profile owners will often spend more time discussing topics like job success or other interests as a distraction. Toma and Hancock (2012) also found that the open-ended responses of deceptive daters were often shorter than those who are truthful. They suggest that this avoidance of elaboration might be a way for the owner to avoid potential contradictions regarding previous deceptions (Toma & Hancock, 2017, p. 87). While these are some things to look for that could help, it is always important to remember that people are not great at detecting deception and if they happen to fall victim to a scam or some other form of deception it could have happened to anyone.
Generally, internet users tend to be suspicious of how honest other users are with their information. Television shows and news reports have sensationalized the thought of someone going online and creating a fake persona with the purpose of deceiving other users to either cause distress, personal gain, or because of personal insecurities. Television shows like the popular MTV series Catfish, have made these types of deceptions seem much more common than they actually are. The act of catfishing and impersonation of the magnitude depicted on those shows are actually relatively uncommon. However, according to Drouin, Millerm Wehle, and Hernandez (2016) there are some subtler but more common types of impersonation that occur online that include: gender switching; age deception; and, “identity concealment, where one hides part or all of his true identity,” (Drouin et al., 2017, p. 135).
While complete impersonation is generally rare, it is not uncommon for people on the internet to present idealized versions of themselves online. In the context of online dating, “51% of online daters…admitted misrepresenting themselves online with regard to their looks, relationship status, age, weight, socio-economic status, or interests,” (Drouin et al., 2017, p.135). When people misrepresent these parts of themselves it is done as a way to may oneself appear more attractive but the level to which they exaggerate or misrepresent themselves varies based on context. According to Drouin et al. (2017), researchers found that online daters whose ultimate goal is to meet a dating target in person will only slightly misrepresent themselves in comparison to those who do not expect to ever meet their suitor. This suggests that the more anonymity a person perceives them self to have the more likely they are to misrepresent themselves in a more idealized way. The specifics of what gets embellished varies from person to person, however, men tend to exaggerate their height while women under report weight and post less accurate/outdated photos (Toma & Hancock, 2012, p. 79).
The next thing to consider is the motivation behind lying online. According to Drouin et al. (2017), lying and deceptive behavior is often correlated with higher scored on Machiavellianism (characterized by manipulation and deceit), and psychopathy (characterized by selfishness, callous behavior, and low levels of remorse). Additionally, extraverts are less likely to lie due to the relational ramifications that could result from lying. While personality traits can be predictors of lying behavior, researchers have also taken to simply asking people why they lie online. The most common response is that most people believe or assume that others online exaggerate details about themselves so it is expected that not every detail on a profile is completely accurate (Drouin et al., 2017, p. 136). Upon conducting their study, Drouin et al. (2017) found that their participants reported, “lying online was to make themselves look better or be more attractive in some way, followed by safety or privacy concerns, mutuality/fantasy/role play, and anonymity,” (Drouin et al., 2017, p. 39).
The most negative concept to consider when talking about who and why individuals engage in deception in online dating environments is trolling. A study done by March, Grieve, Marrington, and Jonason (2017), “sought to explore the online antisocial behavior of ‘trolling,’” (p. 139) which they defined as, “communication online with the intention of being provocative, offensive, or menacing, in an attempt to trigger conflict and cause victims distress for the trolls own amusement,” (p. 140). Trolling is important to consider when discussing deception because a troll, someone who participates in trolling behaviors, often uses deception as a key part of their process. A troll will often set up a profile that is initially inviting and positive in order to draw potential victims in by appealing to their interests and using positive language. Then once a victim matches with the troll’s profile, the troll will open a line of communication that may start off positive but quickly shift to harassment.
According to the March et al. (2017) study, “roughly 57% of women and 21% of men who have used online dating sites and LBRTD apps report being harassed, and LBRTD apps produce higher rates of harassment in comparison to online dating sites,” these high levels of reports have resulted in researchers looking into why individuals participate in trolling behaviors (March et al., 2017, p. 140). While previous research regarding trolling has focused on online activity in general or traditional online dating websites, March et al. (2017) focused specifically on LBRTD apps and in addition to considering the sex differences in trolling behaviors, they also looked into factors such as dark personality traits (e.g. narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism), and impulsivity in order to provide a more comprehensive analysis. Based on the available research, “it was predicted that gender (specifically male) and higher levels of Dark Tetrad traits would predict higher engagement in LBRTD app trolling behaviours, with dysfunctional impulsivity explaining further variance,” (March et al., 2017, p. 140).
Upon performing their study, the results offered some contradicting findings from what was expected. In contrast to other research that suggested that men participate in trolling behaviors more than women, March et al. (2017) found that there were no significant sex differences in trolling on LBRTD apps. It was believed that the comparable scores between genders in this study could have been due to potentially, “elevated levels of psychoticism and sadism [in the women in this study], traits that have been found to be typically higher in men,” (p. 141). However, the March et al. (2017) study replicated these sex differences in psychoticism and sadism suggesting that these traits could not account for the higher rates of trolling behaviors. This inconsistency with other research regarding online behaviors suggested that, “LBRTD applications are an online platform where men and women engage in trolling behaviours equally,” (March et al., 2017, p. 141). However, as the March et al. study is the first of its kind, “interpretations of men and women’s equal trolling scores is speculative,” but, “this inconsistency may provide support for the premise that men and women’s trolling behaviours may be context-dependent,” (March et al., 2017, p. 141-142).
Consistent with other research, March et al. (2017) found that, “sadism and psychopathy were both associated with more trolling behaviours,” while, “trait narcissism and Machiavellianism were not found to be predictive of trolling behaviours on LBRTD apps,” (March et al., 2017, p. 142). It was also found that dysfunctional impulsivity could also be used to predict trolling behavior but due to impulsivity being considered a key element in trait psychopathy March et al. (2017) went on to, “explore possible moderation effects of psychopathy on dysfunctional impulsivity,” (p. 142). It was found that psychopathy did significantly moderate dysfunctional impulsivity and trolling behaviors for those with medium to high levels of trait psychopath, suggesting that, “dysfunctional impulsivity may positively predict engaging in trolling behaviours on LBRTD apps, but only if the individual had medium to high trait psychopathy,” (March et al., 2017, p. 142).
Finally, March et al. (2017) went on to say the results of their study suggest, “individuals who engage in trolling behaviours on LBRTS applications may enjoy inflicting psychological and emotional harm on others,” (p. 142). With other research indicating that the psychological outcomes of harassment online are the same as those offline, it is important to be aware of trolls online. While not every fake profile online is that of a troll, trolls purposefully seek to cause distress to victims. In order to reduce the likelihood of becoming a victim of trolling it is important to know how to recognize deception online before opening a line of dialogue.
Before discussing how to recognize deception in online dating profiles, it is important to note that extensive research has been done to support the notion that people are generally terrible at detecting deception despite believing themselves to be adept at it. A number of reasons for this inadequacy have been suggested. The truth bias is the belief that humans are cooperative and thus all approach social interactions with trust. Next, a misguided reliance on nonverbal cues because people believe that when a person lies they may act differently than they would otherwise despite these cues not actually proving to be an accurate way to gauge deception. This leads to a disregard for baseline information which requires a person to have a well-rounded understanding of a person’s baseline behavior in order to be able to detect changes (Toma, 2017, p. 426). Online, it has been found that despite reporting suspicion of trustworthiness of other online users, people still tend to be affected by truth bias. Toma and Hancock (2012) also found that the judges in their study often made judgments based on, “linguistic cues that are consistent with credibility assessments, rather than cues actually associated with deception,” (Toma & Hancock. 2012, p. 94).
This leads to the question: what linguistic cues should someone look for when assessing online profiles? While Toma and Hancock (2012) acknowledge that the findings of their study are merely correlational, using a computer program to analyze open ended responses, they were able to find some similarities between profiles where the owner had reported lying in some capacity. First, the two found that, “online daters tended to avoid the topics on which they had lied in their profiles,” (p. 86). This meant that if someone had lied about either their weight or appearance they often avoided information that could potentially reveal anything about their body size. In order to compensate for this profile owners will often spend more time discussing topics like job success or other interests as a distraction. Toma and Hancock (2012) also found that the open-ended responses of deceptive daters were often shorter than those who are truthful. They suggest that this avoidance of elaboration might be a way for the owner to avoid potential contradictions regarding previous deceptions (Toma & Hancock, 2017, p. 87). While these are some things to look for that could help, it is always important to remember that people are not great at detecting deception and if they happen to fall victim to a scam or some other form of deception it could have happened to anyone.