Deceptive dating: how the online identities formed in Facebook dating communities benefit the individual user rather than the goals of the community.

Abstract 

Online deception is rife, and despite the illusion of Facebook authentically representing offline users, this platform is susceptible to dishonesty through changeable user identity. Flaws are often hidden, allowing users to display idealised versions of themselves to sustain cultural appeal and/or social interaction. Despite the risks, online users continue to engage in Facebook dating, relying on ineffective group rules to protect against undesirables. This paper explores the stream of identity in communities and networks by focusing on Facebook’s appeal as an online dating community and the ways in which online identities are used to benefit individual users rather than the dating groups they join.

Keywords

Online identity, dating, Facebook, romance, deception, Catfish, SNS, social network, communities, Internet.

Introduction

It is not uncommon for singles to portray the best version of themselves when attracting a potential mate. Perhaps this pressure to impress is even more prevalent online, with users relying on morality and instincts to navigate the Internet dating world. This paper discusses how online identities formed in Facebook dating groups benefit individual users rather than these communities. To best explore this topic, it is essential to establish why Facebook is chosen as a platform for romantic connections, and then determine how online identity is malleable. By establishing these topics prior to critically analysing user and community goals, a foundation for discussion is created, and vital research in Internet dating and online identity are established. Online user benefits will then be discussed, with motivations divided into two categories; users who intend to establish a romantic connection offline, and those who do not intend to pursue relationships beyond the virtual platform. Once these user goals are established these motivations will then be compared to the goals of Facebook dating communities, demonstrating how ambitions can differ.

‘Facebook Official’: Dating Online

Facebook is a pioneer in social networking, offering its users global communication. The website is a convenient way of connecting with friends-of-friends, or an effective method of bonding with a community independent of one’s offline network. It is not surprising then that Facebook groups are dedicated to cultivating sexual and romantic desire, offering communities where users can network with other like-minded individuals. According to Arora (as cited in Toma, 2017, p. 425) there are four main reasons why Facebook is a leading community for online dating, particularly in low socioeconomic areas. These four motivations not only provide insight into Facebook’s online dating appeal, but also suggest how users can utilise the malleability of online identity for their personal gain. These four main reasons are as follows.

Firstly, Facebook is cheap and accessible (Toma, 2017). Facebook’s free personal use is appealing to a mass population, attracting low socioeconomic users globally. Unlike eHarmony, Match.com and RSVP, Facebook dating communities are free to join, enabling more accessibility to groups dedicated to single people.

Facebook can overcome cultural restrictions (Toma, 2017). In countries like India where marriages are often arranged, there can be cultural restrictions that hinder communication between singles. Facebook is used as a means of interacting with the opposite sex outside of religious or cultural boundaries. The website can also be used as a method of exploring areas of sexual interest before committing to lifestyle changes. For instance, LBGTIQ communities can be joined without influencing the user’s offline lifestyle. In this way, Facebook is a tool for socially restricted users when overcoming cultural boundaries, avoiding public scrutiny or maintaining privacy.

Facebook allows all socioeconomic classes, nationalities and cultures to connect as equals, on a global scale (Toma, 2017). The site encourages users from different geographic locations, socioeconomic backgrounds and cultures to communicate. In doing so, Facebook does not restrict the types of people that users may encounter. Unlike Match.com that relies on geographic location and mathematical equations to predict compatibility, Facebook does not limit who a user can contact. This accessibility allows users to meet with people of different (or higher) social classes, or interact with people they may not usually encounter.

Facebook reinforces norms of politeness when interacting with strangers (Toma, 2017). A large appeal of the Facebook platform is the potential to “friend” request strangers, and often being accepted as means of not committing “a social faux pas” (Toma, 2017, p. 425). By taking the chance to friend request an attractive user the likelihood of initiating a romantic relationship increases with more contact, despite the reason for a user initially accepting the friend request.

These four reasons support the thesis statement as they position Facebook as a popular source for online dating. These reasons also introduce Facebook’s vulnerabilities as an online dating platform, particularly regarding changeable user identities.

The Best of Me is the Worst of Me: The Changeable Online Identity

Online user identity is complex due to its changeability. The Internet self is fluid, with age, sex, disposition and appearance now a choice instead of permanent traits. The Internet veils user identity, with anonymity acting as a form of protection. Weaknesses, flaws and otherness can be concealed or suppressed at the user’s discretion (Zhao, Grasmuck & Martin, 2008). Facebook can also be used to create false identities, as shown in Joost and Schulman’s film Catfish (2011). Even though there is controversy surrounding whether the events documented in the film were true, the documentary still demonstrates how an individual could falsify numerous profiles using the Facebook site. Facebook offers the illusion of authenticity because of the website’s reputation for linking one’s offline social circle on an online platform. Facebook thus appears more credible than Internet chat rooms. The website’s appeal is that the authentic offline self can be readily linked to an idealised self, with artificial connectivity often being misinterpreted for social acting. For instance, a user may appear to have a vast network of Facebook friends, but may only interact with a select few. This creates the assumption that users are often more popular offline than they really are (Zhao, Grasmuck & Martin, 2008).

Arguably, online identities can be perceived as an illusion created by users projecting an idealised self through the omission of information, exaggeration of positive traits or through sheer dishonesty. Online dating users can be divided into two categories; these are namely, users who intend to pursue online dating as a genuine means of meeting a potential mate offline, or users who, for a number of reasons, intend on pursuing an online relationship without physically meeting potential suitors. Toma (2017, p. 427) hypothesised that users who had the intention of meeting potential dates offline tended to portray an online identity that was similar to who they were offline, although somewhat idealised. According to Schubert (2014) users demonstrated an online identity of the “hope-for possible selves” (p. 38), delivering to other users narratives and photographs that represented the best, more culturally desirable parts of them. Schubert’s (2014) study found that users tended to misrepresent how they looked, their age and their marital status more commonly than other traits.

This hypothesis is supported by a study conducted by Tooke and Camire (as cited in Guadagno, Okdie & Kruse, 2012), which found that male users were more deceitful online than their female counterparts. Men attempted to appear kinder, more self-assured and more capable than they were offline. Female users, however, were more deceitful about their appearance, sexuality and femininity. They often portrayed themselves as slimmer, prettier and more sexually adventurous than they were offline (Guadagno, et al., 2012). Women often changed their online identity to suit the preferences of the user they desired as a mate. With such deception prevalent in online identities of those users willing to physically meet with others, it is no surprise that users who were unwilling to date in person often relied on the greater use of deception to fulfill their personal needs (Schubert, 2014). Money scams, deceitful intentions and identity theft are rife in the online dating scene. With a staggering 72% of users convinced that online daters are deceitful, it is astounding that Facebook dating communities are still operational, let alone thriving (Schubert, 2014).

‘Sorry, Not Sorry’: The Benefits of Fluid User Identity when Facebook Dating

Thriving Facebook dating communities are rife with idealised online identities. Tooke and Camire (as cited in Guadagno et al., 2012) discovered that users often idealised their personality and attractiveness to appear more desirable, portraying themselves as more socially acceptable, appealing to cultural beauty standards and gender roles. Often these gender roles are ‘performed’, demonstrated through socially determined behaviour rather than being naturally inherited (Blencowe, 2013). Users of Facebook dating communities, however, can manipulate perceptions of cultural performativity by tailoring their online responses to suit the type of identity they wished to portray, with the option of hiding their biological sex, behaviours or sexuality. Facebook communities also allow the possibility for users to plan responses through text, rather than falling victim to awkward silences in conversation or the Freudian slip. Perhaps this method of communication enables online users to appear more charismatic than they are offline. Individuals can mask their flaws and shed their otherness, experiencing Facebook dating communities as someone culturally desired rather than being overlooked as socially undervalued. These users are aware of these deceptions, moulding their online identity with photograph filters, strategic text and even fabricating untrue information.

These fluid online identities allow users to transcend their social status and experience life as the social elite. For example, a female user could create a Facebook profile using the photographs of an attractive male, limiting use of emotive language and reinforcing cultural norms of masculinity through a voiced love of cars and sports. This user could potentially experience online dating from a male perspective, forming connections with other females for their own personal gain. Online bullying, fraud and ‘Catfishing’ are all rife in Facebook communities, with access to user Facebook profiles acting as a means of learning about potential targets. This reinforces Arora’s study that suggested that some users entertain online connections in fear of committing a “social faux pas”, especially if that user is somehow linked to their social network or claims to reside in their area (as cited in Toma, 2017, p. 425).

Perhaps Facebook dating communities are appealing to users because, aside from interacting with potential love interests, it aids in building a user’s self confidence, allowing for their best or imagined selves to be showcased to the world. It appears that there are little consequences for enhancing or falsifying one’s identity when compared to the reward of adoration and affection received from others. Even users who are in committed relationships can portray that they are single to other potential daters, and even though they may be acting immoral, they may not experience the same guilt as physically cheating on their spouse.

If, like Schubert (2014) suggests, Internet daters thought 72% of users were dishonest with their online identity then why not only interact with users who shared a high disclosure of information about themselves and their lives?

Schubert (2014) found that a low self-disclosure in online dating created the deception of a user being unattainable and therefore more desirable. Other online daters were often more drawn to those low-disclosure users despite an increased chance that a profile with limited information could be misleading. Jameson (1991) could explain this experimentation with risk, through his concept of the “waning of affect” (p. 53). Jameson hypothesised that western culture is bombarded by stimuli, and as a result most are desensitised, constantly searching for emotional and physical stimulation. Perhaps online deception is a means of catering to such a need for stimulation, with the fluidity of online identities providing emotional spikes in both the deceiver and those who are deceived. Rosen, Cheever, Cummings and Felt (2008) contribute to this notion, claiming that those who are deceived by fake online profiles add to their own deception through “Hyperpersonal Perspective”, when “users make overattributions about their online partner” (p. 2129), assigning personal traits they admired, rather than qualities the partner actually had. The relationship between the deceiver and the deceived thus suggests the complexity of human nature and the strong influence of the cultures to which one belongs. These strong cultural influences are reflective in the unique sets of rules followed by individual Facebook dating communities.

Following the Rules: How Fluid Online Identities Benefit Individual Users But Rarely Benefit Facebook Dating Communities

Each individual Facebook dating group has their own unique set of rules. These rules will be used to help establish some general goals of Facebook dating communities and how they advise users to behave in order for that community to reach these goals.

For instance, the Facebook dating community ‘Perth Singles’ attempts to maintain the honesty, safety and privacy of its online members and its group rules reflect these goals. The group’s rules clearly state that users must not advertise goods or services, that members must currently be living as a single person in Western Australia and that users cannot bully each other or post offensive content within the group (Perth Singles, 2016). A fluid online identity, however, could be a threat to this community, rebelling against these community goals without administrators being aware of the deception.

An online identity created within the ‘Perth Singles’ Facebook dating community would benefit the individual user because of its fluidity, but jeopardises the authenticity and goals of the Facebook group itself. Deceptive users would gain access to a vulnerable community protected by a series of ineffective rules created by administrators. For instance, scammers could pose as lonely singles in an attempt to covertly act in fraudulent behaviour, essentially using false profiles as an advertisement to make money. Either changing one’s profile settings, or making them private can easily break the rules relating to geographic location and relationship status. Posting offensive content can be done so through private messaging within the group. Perhaps victimised users could be fearful or embarrassed to report a breach to administrators as it could jeopardise their own idealised online identity within the group. And lastly, bullying can occur through constant access to fake accounts, causing psychological harm to those who discover the deception of a fellow dater’s profile.

Even dating communities that appear more specialised like ‘Perth WA Fitness Singles’ share similar goals, adding that positivity and a fitness lifestyle need to be part of the online identity of each member (Perth WA Fitness Singles, n.d.). Rules such as these encourage identity deception and despite a superficial appearance that these goals are being met, it merely encourages potential members to disguise negative and gluttonous behaviours as a means of interacting with singles who seem to be more culturally desirable because of their physique. Despite the appearance of these rules being maintained within a Facebook dating community, the fluidity of online identity seems to benefit the individual user and not the groups to which they belong. Perhaps further research can be conducted to see if more rules in an online community either deter or encourage deceptive users.

Conclusion

Deception is rife online. Facebook’s dating communities are affected by dishonest user identities. The website’s vast accessibility, global scale, free access and appearance of equality make the platform appealing to both genuine and deceptive Internet daters. Weaknesses and flaws can be concealed in many ways; through photo filters, omission of information and strategic editing. Despite knowing the risks of deception, online daters still choose to engage with Facebook communities, relying on ineffective group rules to weed out undesirables. Internet daters seem willing to suspend their belief of an authentic online reality, a reality of waning affect. Deceptions in online dating appear to engage users by appealing to a human need for excitement, lust and passion, rather than prioritising honesty and integrity in their courtships.

 

References

Blencowe, C. (2013). Performativity. In M. Evans & C. J. Williams (eds.) Gender: The Key Concepts (pp. 162-169). Abingdon: Routledge.

Guadagno, R., Okdie, B. & Kruse, S. (2012). Dating deception: Gender, online dating, and exaggerated self-presentation. Computers in human behavior, 28, 642-647.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.010

Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. London & New York: Verso.

Joost, H. (Producer), & Schulman, A. (Director). (2011). Catfish [Motion Picture]. United States: Universal.

Perth Singles. (2016). In Facebook [Group page]. Retrieved April 1, 2018, from https://www.facebook.com/groups/perthsingles/

Perth WA Fitness Singles (n.d.). In Facebook [Group page]. Retrieved April 1, 2018, from https://www.facebook.com/groups/197658607383711/?ref=br_rs

Rosen, L., Cheever, N., Cummings, C. & Felt, J. (2008) The impact of emotionality and self-disclosure on online dating versus traditional dating. Computers in human behavior, 24, 2124-2157.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.10.003

Schubert, K. (2014) Internet dating and “doing gender”: An analysis of women’s experiences dating online. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved April 1, 2018, from http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0046620/00001

Toma, C. L. (2017). Developing online deception literacy while looking for love. Media, Culture and Society, 39 (3), 423-428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0163443716681660

Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S. & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in human behavior, 24, 1816-1836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.