Tag: dating

Facebook’s Negative Impact on Romantic Relationships Through Encouraging Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance

PDF Version

 

Social Networking Site Facebook’s Negative Impact on Relationships Through Encouraging Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance

Abstract

This paper explores the negative impact that the social networking site (SNS) Facebook is having on romantic relationships through encouraging interpersonal electronic surveillance (IES) online. Examined throughout this paper is the heavy involvement that SNSs are playing in romantic relationships, whether it be building new relationships or maintaining pre-existing relationships. This paper discusses the contributions of jealous, anxious or attaching personality traits and how these can provoke relationship jealousy. This paper also discusses how jealousy within a relationship can lead to individuals conducting online surveillance of their romantic partner. The paper examines how relationships are being managed online and how SNSs are being used as a tool to maintain both online and offline relationships. It is also discussed in this paper the impact that IES can have post relationship and how individuals continue to monitor an ex-partners profile once they are no longer romantically involved with one another.

Keywords: social networking sites, social media, interpersonal electronic communication, dating, online dating, communities/networks.

 

Social Networking Site Facebook’s Negative Impact on Relationships Through Encouraging Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance

Social Networking Sites are becoming increasingly popular not only to create and develop new interpersonal relationships, but they are also commonly used to maintain existing relationships. SNSs have also presented a new platform for surveillance within romantic relationships. Tokunaga (2010, p. 705) argues that “SNSs have been reinvented into a tool for interpersonal surveillance along with their social networking capabilities”, this is an important theory to keep in mind when considering the growth of SNSs and the hierarchy that they play in romantic relationships and in online dating communities and networks. Whilst adults are still able to function without having their romantic partner right next to them, it is the emotional availability and support aspects that many expect from a romantic partner that remains a concern due to the increased use of social media and SNSs in romantic partnerships (Morey et al., 2013). This paper discusses how the online social media site Facebook has negatively impacted relationship trust by encouraging IES. The articles referenced throughout this paper will strengthen this argument by discussing how romantic relationships have been influenced by IES, what individual personalities are more likely to participate in the online surveillance of their partner and the effects that this surveillance is having on relationships and individuals even once the relationship has concluded.

Discussion

Online Relationships. Social networking sites, particularly Facebook, play an important role in the maintenance of existing online and offline romantic relationships. It has been discussed how “research has convincingly shown that SNSs are important in the emergence and maintenance of romantic relationships even though this may not be apparent from an individual’s perspective” (Neyer & Voigt, 2004, p. 282), which is an interesting point of discussion considering that majority of people use social media for reasons other than dating and romantic relationships and are becoming unaware that the emergence and maintenance of their romantic relationship, in fact, relies heavily on social media and SNSs. Social networking sites can make or break relationships; they give both a platform for individuals to find information about potential romantic partners such as hobbies and interests (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016), but also give the individuals the platform to obsess over and observe the online actions of others. Van Ouytsel et al. (2016) discuss in their article the popularity of initiating a relationship online through social networking platforms such as Facebook, with 47% of the 18-24-year-old age group surveyed admitting to using the internet and social networking sites for romantic advances. The growth and success of Facebook has created a solid platform for SNSs and its users around the world and over the years with “Facebook becoming the most successful single platform with more than one billion users worldwide” (Fox & Warber, 2014, p. 3) which shows just how dedicated users are to social media. By signing up to Facebook and creating a personal profile, romantic partners can send personal messages through the platform, can post directly to their partner’s profile publically, view photographs, investigate timeline history, and can even search through their partner’s online friends list (Fox & Warber, 2014). SNSs provide romantic partners with all they need to know about their loved one and provide users with the confidence to engage in new romantic relationships and maintain existing relationships through a social networking platform. However, there are numerous issues that can stem from individuals using Facebook as a means of communication and security within their romantic relationship.

Online Relationship Jealousy. Online social networking has been demonstrated to impact people’s romantic relationships in multiple ways. For example, “research documenting the negative impacts that social networking can have on romantic relationships by spurring jealousy, especially amongst individuals with anxious attachment styles” (Carpenter & Spottswood, 2013, p. 1531) illustrates the effects of social media and how it fuels jealousy in romantic relationships. Jealousy is a common feeling that is often experienced in romantic relationships and is especially prevalent in relationships between individuals who experience anxious or attaching personality traits. “With 950 million active Facebook members logging into their accounts daily” (LeFebvre et al., 2014, p. 79) there is no doubt that individuals are going to experience some uncertainty when it comes to their partner being active in online social networking environments such as Facebook. The frequent use of Facebook by an individual in a romantic relationship has had proven connections to some forms of jealousy (LeFebvre et al., 2014). The use of Facebook by relational partners has also been related back to Facebook-related jealousy which can be demonstrated through acts as simple as becoming jealous of a partner sending a friend request to the opposite sex (LeFebvre et al., 2014). Elphinston and Noller (as cited in LeFebvre et al., 2014, p. 80) argue that “determined cognitive jealousy and surveillance behaviours are linked to relationship dissatisfaction” this is a valid argument and puts forward the insinuation that online social networking use within romantic relationships influences the quality and outcome of the relationship.

It is the feeling of jealousy that seemingly drives those in romantic relationships to feel the need to dig further into their romantic partners’ social networking lives and online media profiles for more information on what they are doing, who they are engaging with and what they are engaging in online. This leads to uncertainty and trust issues within the relationship, “relational uncertainty stems from perceptions of ambiguity within the relationship, such as not knowing if the partner is serious about the relationship or if the relationship has a future” (Fox & Warber, 2014, p. 4). In other words, relational uncertainty in a relationship is often the cause for individuals in relationships to participate in jealous online behaviours such as IES. It is extremely normal for “the partner experiencing uncertainty to explore the content on their partner’s profile to determine what their partner is doing and who they are interacting with so that they can alleviate any uncertainty they may have about their partner and the relationship” (Fox & Warber, 2014, p.4) on the other hand, looking through a partner’s profile can also confirm any suspicions being had. Significantly, relationship surveillance through social networking sites such as Facebook is often seen as a tool of control and has also been referred to as the term Little Brother.

Little Brother is described as the occurrence in which individuals on the internet engage in surveillance through social networking sites to gain further awareness about the online behaviours and actions of others (Tokunaga, 2010). Today where online social networking is the norm, participation on social networking sites has become one of the most important ways to stay a fundamental part in a partner’s daily life (Tokunaga, 2010), which is considerably concerning. When we consider being in a romantic relationship or partnership with someone we do not presume that this means staying furthermore in touch with their social networking lives and profiles than reality itself and the physical and emotional sensations of a relationship. It is not uncommon for individuals to not realize that they are participating in IES as “surveillance can be as simple as an individual casually examining their romantic partner’s profile to gather the simplest information” (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 706). As this suggests, IES whether it is intentional or not can have a negative impact on a couple’s relationship.

Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance. Interpersonal electronic surveillance can impact romantic relationships in numerous ways. Le et al. (as cited by Sinclair et al., 2015, p. 78) state that in fact “analysis has shown that perceived social network approval is a consistent, negative predictor of relationship termination” which is an interesting argument and shows the impact that SNSs have on approval within romantic relationships online. Online social media profile analysis is otherwise known as IES, which is characterized as “surreptitious strategies individuals use over communication technologies to gain awareness of another user’s offline and/or online behaviours” (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 706). IES is an interesting concept and is very real in many romantic relationships where partners are regularly using social media platforms and SNSs to communicate with others outside of the relationship. The use of SNSs can provoke jealousy and surveillance which often leads to trust being broken within a romantic relationship, one individual may feel that their privacy has been invaded by their partner. Online social networking, in general, has affected the way in which we communicate with our romantic partners. Instead of face-to-face communication in relationships, couples are now turning to media and SNSs to communicate with their romantic partners; the internet specifically is changing relational communication, which is altering the quality of the communication within their relationship. IES, however, can develop further than just consistently observing a partner’s Facebook profile. Helsper and Whitty (as cited in Utz & Beukeboom, 2010, p. 514) report that “in about 30% of married couples at least one partner has at least once secretly read the e-mails of SMS text messages of the other partner” however, reading a partner’s emails or SMS messages is ultimately a breach of trust within a romantic relationship and is still a form of IES even though it is not conducted through social media or SNSs.

There are many different reasons for which individuals may feel the need to conduct surveillance of their partner in a romantic relationship. The first is suspicious jealousy, which can arise when a romantic partner may feel threatened by an external source whilst in a relationship (Tokunaga, 2010). The second is that individuals who have previously experienced a break of trust or infidelity with their romantic partner feel some uncertainty within their relationship and feel the need to observe their partners’ social networking profiles (Tokunaga, 2010). Interpersonal electronic surveillance can continue even after a relationship has ended with many individuals continuing to observe their ex-partner’s profiles.

Post-Relationship Surveillance. If it were not for online social networking and social media, after a break-up, many couples would have no option but to go their separate ways and would most likely not hear from or need to see their ex-partner again. But due to most individuals having online Facebook profiles along with other social networking profiles, it has become increasingly easier for people to stay in touch with one another.

It has also become increasingly easier for individuals to keep an eye on what their ex-partner is doing and who they are communicating with both online and offline. Furthermore, “when romantic relationships dissolve, people can retain access to an ex-partners status updates and pictures by remaining friends or through shared friends or information that is publically available” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) this is concerning when considering the lack of privacy and security that SNSs often don’t provide. With Facebook allowing the upload of status updates and pictures, other users still have a clear view of what is occurring in a person’s life events, even if they are no longer romantically connected (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). Interestingly, “almost a quarter of American adult social networking site users have admitted to searching online for information about someone they had dated in the past” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) which many would consider seemingly unnecessary and inappropriate considering the romantic relationship has already ended. It is compelling to consider that even once a romantic relationship has ended that individuals can still watch what their ex-partners are doing. Whether an individual chooses to observe their ex-partners Facebook profile depends entirely on the individual themselves and the circumstances in which the relationship ended. There are many relationships that end and with that communication and online friendship is also cut off, and whilst this is the case for some it is not uncommon for “individuals who did not terminate the relationship themselves to search for information about their ex-partner rather than those who have initiated the breakup themselves” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78).

Often, social networking usage after a breakup can turn nasty, unreasonable and sometimes obsessive. IES is not the only way that ex-partners can keep in contact through social networking post-breakup (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). Individuals can post on their personal profiles after a breakup to try and catch the attention of their ex-partner or someone who may be in contact with their ex-partner. There are three main ways that ex-partners can disturb each other through social networking; covert provocation, public harassment and venting (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). Covert provocation can be simple things such as posting song lyric or poetry lines within status updates in reference to their ex-partner (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). However, “these messages can be used to hurt the ex-partner or to communicate with the intention to get back together” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) which often ends up having a negative effect on both the ex-partner and the individual committing the act. Public harassment activities, on the other hand, are less frequent and can include things such as “changing one’s relationship status from “in a relationship” with the intent to make the ex-partner jealous or posting embarrassing pictures of the ex-partner to humiliate them” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) however, public harassment activities can also lead to a more damaging outcome. The third process of online social media disturbance is venting which includes “writing negative comments about the ex-partner and posting mean-spirited or hateful comments in a response to pictures of an ex-partner” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) which is more commonly seen between young adults on social media today and majority of people have fallen victim to venting. Personality traits can also influence social media usage after breakups. Fox and Warber (2014, p. 2) discuss how “attachment styles influence reactions to breakups and that those with anxious attachment styles often have a longer recovery period and may continue to seek information about their partner after the breakup.” Fox and Warber (2014) conclude that their findings have proven that anxious attachment can cause further distress and frequent partner monitoring post-breakup. Overall, SNSs and IES can continue to impact a relationship even once it has concluded.

Conclusion

The popularity of social networking sites being used within relationships as a tool to both create new, and develop on, existing romantic relationships is becoming an increasing issue within social media platforms and SNSs which negatively impacts romantic relationships and breaks the trust between romantic partners. Social networking sites have also amplified the issue of surveillance within relationships particularly interpersonal electronic surveillance. The online social networking site Facebook has negatively impacted romantic relationships by encouraging interpersonal electronic surveillance. Surveillance within romantic relationships has been identified throughout this paper in relation to personality traits and jealousy issues being the leading causes when it comes to individuals observing their partner’s online profiles. Trust has also been identified as a contributor to interpersonal electronic surveillance. The impact that online surveillance has on relationships is negative and has affected the way that people may feel in a relationship or may treat their partner in a relationship. It was also discussed how surveillance of social networking profiles can continue even after the relationship has ended. There are many contributing factors into why individuals choose to observe their romantic partner’s social networking profiles but overall conducting surveillance of a partner’s Facebook profile is both an invasion of privacy and a violation of trust. Arguably, without the ability to survey a partner’s social networking profile, romantic relationships would work differently and would not be so negatively impacted by social media usage.

 

References

Carpenter, C., & Spottswood, E. (2013). Exploring romantic relationships on social networking sites using the self-expansion model. Computers In Human Behaviour, 29(4), 1531-1537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.021

Fox, J., & Warber, K. (2014). Social Networking Sites in Romantic Relationships: Attachment, Uncertainty, and Partner Surveillance on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, And Social Networking, 17(1), 3-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0667

LeFebvre, L., Blackburn, K., & Brody, N. (2014). Navigating romantic relationships on Facebook. Journal Of Social And Personal Relationships, 32(1), 78-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407514524848

Morey, J., Gentzler, A., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A., & Westerman, D. (2013). Young adults’ use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and associations with attachment style. Computers In Human Behavior, 29(4), 1771-1778. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.019

Neyer, F., & Voigt, D. (2004). Personality and social network effects on romantic relationships: a dyadic approach. European Journal Of Personality, 18(4), 279-299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.519

Sinclair, H., Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Wright, B. (2015). Don’t Tell Me Who I Can’t Love. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(1), 77-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0190272514565253

Tokunaga, R. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers In Human Behaviour, 27(2), 705-713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.014

Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. (2011). The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(4), 511-527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01552.x

Van Ouytsel, J., Van Gool, E., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., & Peeters, E. (2016). Exploring the role of social networking sites within adolescent romantic relationships and dating experiences. Computers In Human Behaviour, 55, 76-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.042

Creative Commons License: CC BY-ND

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

 

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