Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

Why do people lie online? Because everyone lies on the internet

Published: 01 November 2016 Publication History

Abstract

In this study, we examined online deception across four different online venues (i.e., social media, online dating, anonymous chat rooms, and sexual websites) in a sample of 272 U.S. adults (average age=32.22 years) recruited through Amazons MTurk. Few of the participants (16%32%) reported that they were or would be always honest across these sites, and even fewer (02%) suspected that others were always honest in these different online venues. In terms of types of lie, most (5590%) believed that others were at least sometimes lying about their age, gender, activities, interests, and appearance across the four online venues. Ninety percent expected others to lie at least sometimes about their appearance (most expected lie type) and 55% expected others to lie at least sometimes about their gender (least expected lie type). However, although they expected people to lie more about their gender on sites with more anonymity and invisibility (like anonymous chat rooms and sexual websites), they expected equal rates of lies about appearance across all four websites, even on sites where users provide pictures and have shared acquaintances. Moreover, perceptions of others lying behavior on the venue were more significant predictors of own lying behavior than any of the personal characteristics we measured (i.e., Machiavellianism, psychopathy, extraversion, or internet addiction). The importance of mutuality was further reinforced by qualitative comments that showed that, in addition to lying to look more attractive or for privacy or protection concerns, some people lie because everyone lies on the internet. Only 1632% reported self-honesty, and 02% expected others honesty online.People expected the most lies on sexual websites and the fewest on social media.People expected more lies about appearance and fewer lies about gender.Ratings of others lying behavior predicted own lying behavior across websites.Contextual factors more important than personality factors for own lying behavior.

References

[1]
V. Benet Martinez, O.P. John, Los cinco grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the big five in spanish and english, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1998) 729-750.
[2]
J. Berg, J. Dickhaut, K.A. McCabe, Trust, reciprocity and social history, Games and Economic Behavior, 10 (1995) 122-142.
[3]
A.L. Blanchard, J.L. Welbourne, M.D. Boughton, Amodel of online trust: The mediating role of norms and sense of virtual community, Information, Communication & Society, 14 (2011) 76-106.
[4]
T. Buchanan, M.T. Whitty, The online dating romance scam: Causes and consequences of victimhood, Psychology, Crime & Law, 20 (2014) 261-283.
[5]
M. Buhrmester, T. Kwang, S.D. Gosling, Amazons mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6 (2011) 3-5.
[6]
D.B. Buller, J.K. Burgoon, Interpersonal deception theory, Communication Theory, 6 (1996) 203-242.
[7]
K. Casler, L. Bickel, E. Hackett, Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazons MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing, Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (2013) 2156-2160.
[8]
A. Caspi, P. Gorsky, Online deception: Prevalence, motivation, and emotion, Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 9 (2006) 54-59.
[9]
B. Cornwell, D.C. Lundgren, Love on the Internet: Involvement and misrepresentation in romantic relationships in cyberspace vs. realspace, Computers in Human Behavior, 17 (2001) 197-211.
[10]
B.M. DePaulo, D.A. Kashy, Everyday lies in close and casual relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (1998) 63-79.
[11]
B.M. DePaulo, D.A. Kashy, S.E. Kirkendol, M.M. Wyer, J.A. Epstein, Lying in everyday life, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (1996) 979-995.
[12]
J.S. Donath, Identity and deception in the virtual community, in: Communities in cyberspace, Routledge, New York, 1998, pp. 29-59.
[13]
P.D. Dunlop, D.L. Morrison, J. Koenig, B. Silcox, Comparing the Eysenck and HEXACO models of personality in the prediction of adult delinquency, European Journal of Personality, 26 (2012) 194-202.
[14]
N.B. Ellison, J.T. Hancock, C.L. Toma, Profile as promise: A framework for conceptualizing veracity in online dating self-presentations, New Media & Society, 14 (2011) 45-62.
[15]
J. Feitosa, D.L. Joseph, D.A. Newman, Crowdsourcing and personality measurement equivalence: A warning about countries whose primary language is not english, Personality & Individual Differences, 75 (2015) 47-52.
[16]
M.D. Feldman, Munchausen by internet: Detecting factitious illness and crisis on the internet, Southern Medical Journal, 93 (2000) 669-672.
[17]
B.J. Fogg, Prominence-Interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility online, in: CHI 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 2003, pp. 722-723.
[18]
J.F. George, G. Giordano, P.A. Tilley, Website credibility and deceiver credibility: Expanding prominence-interpretation theory, Computers in Human Behavior, 54 (2016) 83-93.
[19]
J.F. George, A. Robb, Deception and computer-mediated communication in daily life, Communication Reports, 21 (2008) 92-103.
[20]
A.K. Gordon, A.G. Miller, Perspective differences in the construal of lies: Is deception in the eye of the beholder?, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (2000) 46-55.
[21]
R.E. Guadagno, B.M. Okdie, S.A. Kruse, Dating deception: Gender, online dating, and exaggerated self-presentation, Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (2012) 642-647.
[22]
R. Halevy, S. Shalvi, B. Verschuere, Being honest about dishonesty: Correlating self-reports and actual lying, Human Communication Research, 40 (2014) 54-72.
[23]
J. Hancock, M. Woodworth, An Eye for an I: The challenges and opportunities for spotting credibility in a digital world, in: Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment, Springer, New York, NY, 2013, pp. 325-340.
[24]
A.F. Hayes, K. Krippendorff, Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data, Communication Methods and Measures, 1 (2007) 77-89.
[25]
S. Henderson, M. Gilding, Ive never clicked this much with anyone in my life: Trust and hyperpersonal communication in online friendships, New Media & Society, 6 (2004) 487-506.
[26]
S. Jakobwitz, V. Egan, The dark triad and normal personality traits, Personality & Individual Differences, 40 (2006) 331-339.
[27]
A.N. Joinson, B. Dietz-Uhler, Explanations for the perpetration of and reactions to deception in a virtual community, Social Science Computer Review, 20 (2002) 275-289.
[28]
A.A. Jn, The development of MMORPG culture and the guild, Australian Folklore: A Yearly Journal of Folklore Studies, 25 (2010) 97-112.
[29]
P.K. Jonason, G.D. Webster, The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad, Psychological Assessment, 22 (2010) 420-432.
[30]
D.A. Kashy, B.M. DePaulo, Who lies?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (1996) 1037-1051.
[31]
K. Lee, M.C. Ashton, R.E. de Vries, Predicting workplace delinquency and integrity with the HEXACO and five factor models of personality structure, Human Performance, 18 (2005) 179-197.
[32]
P.V. Lippard, Ask me no questions, Ill tell you no lies: Situational exigencies for interpersonal deception, Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52 (1988) 91-103.
[33]
K. Mascia, E. Aradillas, H. Breuer, J. Dodd, H. Shenfeld, Fake girlfriend hoax: How a star athlete got duped, People, 79 (2013) 69.
[34]
K.A. McKenna, A.S. Green, M.J. Gleason, Relationship formation on the internet: Whats the big attraction?, Journal of Social Issues, 58 (2002) 9-31.
[35]
M.E. Smith, J.T. Hancock, L. Reynolds, J. Birnholtz, Everyday deception or a few prolific liars? the prevalence of lies in text messaging, Computers in Human Behavior, 41 (2014) 220-227.
[36]
C.M. Steele, The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self, in: The self in social psychology, Psychology Press, New York, NY, US, 1999, pp. 372-390.
[37]
J. Suler, The online disinhibition effect, Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7 (2004) 321-326.
[38]
C.L. Toma, J.T. Hancock, N.B. Ellison, Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (2008) 1023-1036.
[39]
C. Toma, C. Jiang, J.T. Hancock, Lies in the eye of the beholder: Self-other asymmetry in beliefs about deception across interpersonal media, Communication Research (2016). http://crx.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/02/25/0093650216631094.abstract
[40]
S. Utz, Types of deception and underlying motivation: What people think, Social Science Computer Review, 23 (2005) 49-56.
[41]
L. Van Gelder, The strange case of the electronic lover, in: Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social choice, Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1991, pp. 533-546.
[42]
J. Walther, Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction, Communication Research, 23 (1996) 3-43.
[43]
J.B. Walther, M.R. Parks, Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships, in: Handbook of interpersonal communication, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2002, pp. 529-563.
[44]
J.B. Walther, C.L. Slovacek, L.C. Tidwell, Is a picture worth a thousand words?: Photographic images in long-term and short-term computer-mediated communication, Communication Research, 28 (2001) 105-134.
[45]
D. Warkentin, M. Woodworth, J.T. Hancock, N. Cormier, Warrants and deception in computer-mediated communication, in: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, ACM, New York, NY, 2010, pp. 9-12.
[46]
M.T. Whitty, Liar, liar! an examination of how open, supportive and honest people are in chat rooms, Computers in Human Behavior, 18 (2002) 343-352.
[47]
M.T. Whitty, Revealing the real me, searching for the actual you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site, Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (2008) 1707-1723.
[48]
M.T. Whitty, S.E. Carville, Would I lie to you? Self-serving lies and other-oriented lies told across different media, Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (2008) 1021-1031.
[49]
L. Widyanto, M. McMurran, The psychometric properties of the internet addiction test, Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7 (2004) 443-450.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Lies, Deceit, and Hallucinations: Player Perception and Expectations Regarding Trust and Deception in GamesProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642253(1-15)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)“Should I Introduce myself?”International Journal of Human-Computer Studies10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103279188:COnline publication date: 1-Aug-2024
  • (2023)Consequences of Social Listening via Mediated Communication Technologies (MCTs)International Journal of Social Media and Online Communities10.4018/IJSMOC.32410415:1(1-20)Online publication date: 8-Jun-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Computers in Human Behavior
Computers in Human Behavior  Volume 64, Issue C
November 2016
920 pages

Publisher

Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

Netherlands

Publication History

Published: 01 November 2016

Author Tags

  1. Anonymity
  2. Chat rooms
  3. Lying
  4. Online deception
  5. Sexual websites
  6. Social networking

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 22 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Lies, Deceit, and Hallucinations: Player Perception and Expectations Regarding Trust and Deception in GamesProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642253(1-15)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)“Should I Introduce myself?”International Journal of Human-Computer Studies10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103279188:COnline publication date: 1-Aug-2024
  • (2023)Consequences of Social Listening via Mediated Communication Technologies (MCTs)International Journal of Social Media and Online Communities10.4018/IJSMOC.32410415:1(1-20)Online publication date: 8-Jun-2023
  • (2023)Dating in the darkTelematics and Informatics10.1016/j.tele.2023.10198581:COnline publication date: 1-Jun-2023
  • (2023)Dating in the darkComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2023.107680143:COnline publication date: 1-Jun-2023
  • (2022)Verbal vs. Nonverbal Cues in Static and Dynamic Contexts of Fraud Detection in CrowdsourcingJournal of Global Information Management10.4018/JGIM.31092830:1(1-28)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2022
  • (2022)“A Voice that Suits the Situation”: Understanding the Needs and Challenges for Supporting End-User Voice CustomizationProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3491102.3501856(1-10)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2022
  • (2022)“Not as attractive and communicatively competent as I expected”Computers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2022.107203131:COnline publication date: 1-Jun-2022
  • (2022)Gender and Culture Differences in Perception of Deceptive Video Filter UseHCI International 2022 - Late Breaking Papers. Interaction in New Media, Learning and Games10.1007/978-3-031-22131-6_5(52-72)Online publication date: 26-Jun-2022
  • (2021)Intelligent Agent Deception and the Influence on Human Trust and Interaction2021 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO)10.1109/ARSO51874.2021.9542847(200-205)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2021
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media