Running head: STATE OF ONLINE DATING DECEPTION THROUGH IDT

The State of Online Dating, Self-presentation and Deception

through Interpersonal Deception Theory:
A Literature Review
Aviva Gordon
Wayne State University
Winter, 2013

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

2!

Abstract
In recent years, online (virtual) dating has gone from a marginal to a mainstream social practice
for those seeking romance and/or marriage. One of the key components and one of the first steps
of online dating is the online profile, a self-presentation of photographs and linguistic
descriptions, where one presents oneself and previews self-presentations of others, as well as a
conduit for future face-to-face meetings. Goffman (1959) in his seminal writing, The
Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, proposed that within self-presentation people lie or conceal
their attitudes, beliefs, and emotions. Since the goal of any self-presentation is to be liked and
seen as competent and compatible, online dating is essentially a breeding ground for deception
(DePaulo, Lindsay, Malone, Muhlenbruck, Charlton & Cooper, 2003). The purpose of this
literature review is to identify and assess the state of knowledge of self-presentation and online
dating, in the role of deception, by drawing on IDT as a guide and framework for organizing the
literature. These findings conclude IDT is complex and has limitations such as not addressing
seemingly key variables for online dating behavior such as the absence of a pre-relational
context, timing, emotions, and the point of reciprocity. This literature review suggests an
addendum to IDT, such as Deception in Virtual Environments, or DIVE, for short, be
considered for future research in an effort to meet the needs of the growing online dating social
practice.

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

3!

The State of Online Dating, Self-presentation and Deception

through Interpersonal Deception Theory:A Literature Review

In recent years, online (virtual) dating has gone from a marginal to a mainstream social
practice for those seeking romance and/or marriage. One of the key components and one of the
first steps of online dating is the online profile. Typically the online profile is a selfpresentational portfolio of photographs and linguistic descriptions, where one presents oneself
and previews self-presentations of others, as well as a conduit for future face-to-face meetings.
Since the goal of any self-presentation is to be liked and seen as competent and
compatible, online dating is essentially a breeding ground for deception (DePaulo, Lindsay,
Malone, Muhlenbruck, Charlton & Cooper, 2003). Goffman (1959) in his seminal writing, The
Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, proposed that self-presentation is a part of everyones daily
life existence and that many crucial facts lie beyond the time and place of interaction or lie
concealed within it. For example, the true or real attitudes, beliefs, and emotions of the
avowals or through what appears to be involuntary expressive behavior (p.2).
From a communication perspective, what is to be included, or not, in ones selfpresentation depends on the context and medium of communication (Toma and Hancock, 2010).
For example, a face-to-face interaction is filled with embodied and dynamic verbal and
nonverbal cues, whereas an online profile is static, until changed, accentuating ones attributes

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

4!

linguistically and visually with text and photos (Baumeister, 1982; Goffman, 1959). This is why
deception has become an important construct in online dating.
One prominent theory that scholars reference for interpersonal deception is Buller and
Burgoons (1996) Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT). This theory suggests that relationships
and contexts influence deception between the sender and the receiver, and is bound up by a series
of intricate moves and counter moves. IDT and its fruitful series of attributes and propositions
addressing the way in which individuals engage in deception, either strategically or nonstrategically, is in the infancy stages of research in the area of online dating. As this literature
review will demonstrate, the research thus far glosses over the role of deception within online
dating self-presentation.
Therefore, the purpose of this literature review is to identify and assess the state of
knowledge of self-presentation and online dating, in the role of deception, by drawing on IDT as
a guide and framework for organizing the literature. The rationale for this approach is to explore
how the body of research informs the theory, and how the theory helps elucidate the body of
research. Since IDT is a dynamic process embedded in daily contexts and relationships, and
seems to have made its way into online dating, it is a useful framework for scholars interested in
interactive online communication.
Online Dating
In recent years, online dating has gone from a marginal to a mainstream social practice
for seeking romance and/or marriage. In the 1990s, according to Lawson and Leck (2006), the
internet became a major vehicle for social encounters a new social institution that has the
ability to connect people who have never met face to face and is thus likely to transform the

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

5!

dating process (p. 190). Similarly, Barraket and Waring (2008) define online dating as a
purposeful form of meeting new people through specifically designed internet sites (p. 149).
Valkenburg and Peter (2007) reported that 37% of all single Americans have tried online dating
and the Web is the fourth most popular way to find romance, next to work/school, family/friends
and social gathering places. Gone are the days where online dating was a sign of social stigma.
Online dating has evolved into a viable, efficient, and sophisticated way to meet, date, establish
long term relationships and/or marry (Ellison, Heino and Gibbs, 2006).
Valkenburg and Peter (2007) reason that online dating is popular because it is easier than
real-life dating; spatial proximity is irrelevant, meeting like minded people is easier, people can
meet each other without the help of friends, or have to incur excessive time with food, travel and
clothing all associated with public domain socializing. Walther (1996) articulates that one of the
reasons for the rise in usage of online dating is because online dating breeds a heightened sense
of personal closeness rather than in-person encounters. Hence, the online world allows for easier
management of initial self-presentation, as one often strives to present one's idealized identity.
One of the key components of online dating is the online profile, which typically is the
self-presentational portfolio of photographs and linguistic descriptions, as well as a conduit for
future face-to-face meetings, where one presents oneself and previews self-presentations of
others. Hardey (2004) says that online dating profiles are a site to (p.210). Hence, online
profiles are the first stop for screening potential individuals before meeting one another face-toface. The screening can include creating and/or viewing personalized profiles, synchronous
(instant messaging) and asynchronous (e-mail) communication.

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

6!

It is interesting to note that Barraket and Waring (2008) found that online dating patterns
are formed by, and remain within, familiar social and cultural terrain. In addition, Ellison et al.
(2006) tout the online dating arena as an opening to report the changing cultural norms
surrounding technology-mediated relationship formation and to add insight into the important
nature of online behavior, especially regarding self-presentation strategies.
Self-Presentation
When an individual enters the presence of another person(s), they often seek to obtain
information about him/her or to bring into play information about him/her based on the
familiarity of the relationship. This familiarity (if any) helps the people to know ahead of time
the expectancies of one another. By being informed in these ways, the others will develop a sense
and knowledge of the relationship in order to deliver and/or obtain the desired response.
Goffman (1959) in his seminal writing, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,
proposed that self-presentation is a part of everyones daily life existence; life is a stage; we are
all actors presenting scenes to an audience; every scene and audience has their variants, and the
variants determine the ways in which the actor presents oneself and their activities to others.
Each scene includes the ways in which the actor (sender) guides and controls, either strategically
or non-strategically, the impressions the audience (receiver) will form of him or her. This is
based on the kinds of things the actor, as a character in a particular role, says and does while
sustaining their performance in front of the audience. The audience typically relies on the actors
message that they in fact are providing, as to who or what they are about.
Goffman (1959) explained that many crucial facts lie beyond the time and place of
interaction or lie concealed within it. For example, the true or real attitudes, beliefs, and

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

7!

emotions of the avowals or through what appears to be involuntary expressive behavior (p.2).
In short, self-presentation is the creation and display of ones self to a given audience and
involves making important decisions in an effort to create the most favorable of an impression.
Taking up the work of Goffman (1959), Leary (1995) contends self-presentation is typically
focused toward achieving strategic goals. Either the creation or the strategy that surrounds the
packaging and editing of self-presentation are essential for virtually (no pun intended) any social
interaction.
From a communication perspective, what is to be included, or not, in ones selfpresentation depends on the context and medium of communication (Toma and Hancock, 2010).
For example, a face-to-face interaction is filled with embodied and dynamic verbal and
nonverbal cues, whereas an online profile is static, until changed, accentuating ones attributes
linguistically and visually with text and photos (Baumeister, 1982; Goffman, 1959).
Furthermore, the online self-presentation varies depending on whether one is seeking a
short term or long term partner. According to Toma and Hancock (2010), those seeking shortterm engagements present more embellished self-presentations with the intent to attract more
mates to choose from, whereas those with long term goals are more realistic in their selfpresentations. Also, different dating sites perpetuate different styles of self-presentation. These
sites have different formatting, thus encouraging specific characteristics and cultures of people.
As such, dating sites are in abundance for general audiences and specific cultures. For example,
RSVP.com.au and Lavalife.com specialize in searching for particular characteristics;
EHarmony.com focuses on personality testing; and Friendster.com emphasizes members meet
through like-minded social networks (Barraket and Waring 2008). There are ethnic group dating

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

8!

sites as well; i.e. for those seeking the Christian community christianmingle.com and respectfully
for the Jewish community sawyouatsinai.com.
Self- Presentation Meets Online Dating
Concerns about online dating and the veracity of self-presentations have become
inherent, simply because online communication interaction is disembodied. The interaction is
typically void of basic nonverbal cues such as facial expressions, gestures and body movements
(unless using video features such as Skype) and is usually acquired through textual and
photographic means. This lack of face-to-face interaction increases the opportunity for
misleading about ones attributes and observing the attributes of others (Toma & Hancock,
2012).
When looking for potential mates the two characteristics most sought after for both men
and women are physical attractiveness and social status. If physical attractiveness is not up to par
the social status can compensate for this (Toma and Hancock 2010). Also, since competition is
fierce, the pressure and stakes are higher to create sought after self-presentations. Moreover,
online dating is the first step towards establishing relationships for future face-to-face meetings,
which in theory should encourage truthfulness. On a positive note the technical aspects of online
dating include the ability to archive written and vocal data, which may discourage embellishing
too much of ones self-presentation.
According to Goffman (1959) initiating a relationship involves important decision
making for what details one should disclose or not disclose, in order to present ones self
favorably. Many times, potential partners are either sought after or ignored by hopeful partners
based on a perusal of the online profile (Heino, Ellison and Gibbs, 2010). Therefore, self-

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

9!

presentation for online dating is a balancing act. On the one hand an interesting and/or
embellished profile will attract more inquires, but if the profile seems inaccurate or inconsistent,
the online user runs the risk of alienating potential partners. Moreover, according to Ellison et al.,
(2011) people desire partners whom will understand and appreciate them as they truly are,
rather than an idealized version inconsistent with reality (p. 46). As such, Ellison et al. (2006)
reported that 86% of all online dating users contend that other online daters are deceptive when it
comes to describing their physical appearance and at the same time say that deception is the
major disadvantage and barrier to trust within the online dating process.
Since the goal of any self-presentation is to be liked and seen as competent and
compatible, it is essentially a breeding ground for deception (DePaulo, et al., 2003). Therefore, in
taking up the work of Goffman (1959), it appears the online dating environment becomes the
breeding ground for creating, modifying, and recreating ones self presentation. In a sense the
profile is similar to that of a professional resume. Whereas the resume is customized for a
particular position, the online profile is ultimately customized to meet the needs of both parties.
The difference is that in the long run, people are not that pliable when looking for and
maintaining long lasting romance, which is why embellishment and deception of selfpresentation is a salient issue in online dating, as discussed in the following section. (DePaulo et
al., 2003).
Interpersonal Deception Theory
Since nearly everyone has lied or been the recipient of a lie in potentially one-quarter of
their interpersonal communication, the IDT theory is very useful for understanding the processes
of deception within personal relationships. Hence, IDT was developed with the intent to integrate

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

1! 0

previous deception research with the concepts of interpersonal communication (Buller &
Burgoon, 1996). According to Burgoon (2005), lying is pervasive, to the point of being present in
up to one-third of all conversations, and at the same time, the accuracy of deception detection is
poor. All the while, senders try to send untruthful messages, even though they are simultaneously
concerned they may get caught being deceptive (Buller & Burgoon, 1996). Thus, IDT helps
elucidate how deception operates in interpersonal communication.
IDT is grounded within conversations of interpersonal relationships, and influenced by
ones expectations and goals, knowledge, behavior, skills, and identity. Buller and Burgoon
(1996) contend that deception is a complex and multi-faceted interactive communication, within
a context or relationship, involving the dyadic and dialogic relationship between the sender/
receiver - the one who is lying and the one who is being lied to. The receiver, typically operating
from a truth bias, accepts the message as it is delivered, unless the sender gives the receiver
reason to believe otherwise (Buller & Burgoon, 1996; Jensen & Burgoon, 2008). Deception,
then, is defined as a perception that the sender's speech or actions may be duplicitous.
According to Burgoon (2005), the territory of deception is vast, residing in more than 150
verbal and nonverbal features, therefore limiting the concentration to the deception classes of
falsification, concealment and equivocation. Within these classes lies deception encompassing
more than just outright lies, but everything from white lies and hyperbole, to misdirection and
evasion, to equivocation and ambiguity, to concealment and omission of relevant
information...and acts directed toward deluding another, not the self (p. 7). Also, this rules out
unintended lies or lying mistakenly.

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

1! 1

As deception becomes evident, the relationship between the sender and receiver is bound
up by a series of intricate moves and counter moves (Buller & Burgoon, 1996). For example,
deceivers control their behavior by becoming more pleasant than usual. Receivers may then
mimic these pleasantries. In turn, the deceiver is likely to relax and exert less control if they
sense that their partner is accepting of their discourse.
Because each event is distinct, comprised of obvious and/or discrete properties before,
during, and after the deception has occurred, Buller and Burgoon's (1996) theory describes
different kinds of a deceptive acts, reasons for deception, and variables that measure whether the
act of deception was successful. These phases of deceptive messaging are as follows: 1) preinteraction: context, familiarity, goals, and communication skills; 2) iterative interactional
patterns: moves and counter moves as the sender and receiver are trying to work with the
intentions (and beliefs); 3) post interaction: senders size up their deception success, as receivers
consider the credibility of the senders message. These assumptions are conceptualized and
expanded into 18 propositions, as to how deception is played out in interpersonal
communication, and are key to IDT. These propositions are detailed in Appendices A and B.
Buller and Burgoons (1996) propositions explain cognition and behavior of both sender
and receiver as the propositions generate numerous testable hypotheses of how IDT takes place
in interpersonal communication contexts (p. 211). A number of scholars have used IDT as part
of their specific research, but not to the extent of identifying which specific series of propositions
elucidate their hypothesis. This literature review will propose which bodies of research most
closely fit into one or more of the IDT propositions (pre-interaction, iterative, and/or post
patterns).

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

1! 2

Propositions Overview
Propositions One Through Eleven, the Pre-interactive Process
Propositions one through eleven include the pre-interaction context and relationships.
This particular set of propositions addresses the conditions, factors, and variables which
influence and govern the pre-interaction cognition and behavior of the sender-receiver dyad. For
example, the familiarity between the two parties interacting involves some level of knowledge
with each other's character, behavior, verbal and nonverbal communication skills, personal goals,
expectancies, and constraints (Burgoon & Buller, 1996; Jensen and Burgoon, 2008). Thus,
familiarity is going to impact the cognitive and behavioral strategies for deception.
IDT utilizes three subcomponents of familiarity within the pre-interaction process. First,
informational familiarity is based on past interactions with a person, and includes how much
knowledge and information is known about this person. Second, behavioral familiarity is based
on the persons known behavioral patterns. In this case, a change of behavior may raise the
receiver's antenna as to whether the sender is exhibiting atypical behavior. Therefore, the sender
has to pre-mediate their deception in order to avoid this scenario, which adds detection
apprehension to the sender. Third, relational familiarity is based on how well people know one
another. Therefore, Jenson and Burgoon (2008) maintain that planning may produce more
credible messages...thus greater deception success (p. 425). Moreover, an added advantage is
for the deceivers who exhibit nonverbal and high social skills; they are determined to be more
adept at controlling their deception through verbal and nonverbal communication (Burgoon,
Buller & Guerrero, 1995).

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

1! 3

Indeed, Buller and Burgoon (1996) also stipulate that deception is influenced by the
environment, such as face-to-face or venues such as computer mediated-online interaction; the
latter restricts and alters the interpersonal exchange in ways beyond traditional face-to-face
interactive communication. For example, in face-to face interaction the sender-receiver dyad can
see and hear each other. Online exchanges are less interactive, by sheer lack of observing each
other's senses. Walther and Burgoon (1992) found that lack of these senses in online
communication actually inhibit movement of the body, alter temporal perception, and at the same
time lead to less inhibition and greater self-absorption, creating delayed responses such as
pauses.
Propositions Twelve Through Sixteen, the Iterative Process
Propositions twelve through sixteen are iterative interactional patterns which describe the
process of receiver acceptance or suspicion displays and sender reactions to those displays. In
other words, this set of propositions refers to a game of dynamic moves, countermoves,
fluctuations and adaptations until the sender-receiver dyad feel that they have been successful
with what they wanted to accomplish during the interaction (Burgoon & Buller, 1996; Jensen and
Burgoon, 2008).
The iterative process works as follows: the sender sends their initial message; the receiver
interprets and judges the message. If the receiver senses duplicity, they may surreptitiously test
for truthfulness, instead of confronting the sender. Moreover, if the receiver observations are
covert their behavior may not change, thus not alerting the sender that they are on to them.
Conversely, some receivers are more open to confrontation and may attempt to intimidate and
fluster their quarry (Buller & Burgoon, 1996, p. 229). The sender then adjusts their behavior

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

1! 4

based on their perceived level of success; then the receiver discerns either truth or deception.
This pattern repeats until the interaction comes to a close.
Based on the particular propositions the behaviors manifest different outcomes. Two
major components driving the iterative process are strategic and nonstrategic behaviors. Strategic
behaviors can include varying levels of self-presentation adjusted purposefully to meet the needs
of the interactants via the interaction. Nonstrategic behavior is uncontrolled behavior which
slips out during deception...such behaviors may include arousal and nervousness, negative
emotion, lack of involvement (Jensen & Burgoon, 2008, p.427).
Propositions Seventeen Through Eighteen, Post Interaction Process
Propositions seventeen through eighteen are post interaction outcomes, where judgments
of the interaction are rendered about sender credibility and receiver suspicion. Buller, Burgoon
and Guerrero, (1995), in a study previous to introducing IDT in 1996, found that deceivers felt
they had the most success when they were more skilled, less anxious, and the task was not
difficult, and the conversation had gone as they had planned. Similarly, the receivers concurred
that senders were more believable when the senders were more skilled in positive affect,
composure, as well as verbal and nonverbal control. Finally, detection accuracy and bias are
factors in the post-interaction process, stemming from the pre-interactive idea of relational
familiarity.
The State of IDT as Referenced in Online, Self-presentation and Deception Studies
The aim of this section is to identify and assess the state of knowledge of selfpresentation and online dating, in the role of deception, drawing on IDT as a guide and
framework for organizing the literature. The first three studies (Toma and Hancock, 2010, 2012,

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

1! 5

and DeAndrea, Tong, Liang, Levine, and Walther, 2012) base their predictions on IDT. The
following three studies (Valkenburg and Peter 2007; Lawson and Leck, 2006 ; Gibbs, Ellison &
Heino, 2006) specifically explain the relationship between self-presentation, online dating and
deception. The final study (Householder and Wong, 2011) references mood as an important
factor that influences ones ability to detect deception. In each of these studies, IDT will be
identified and applied in terms of the theorys propositions. Although each study could be on the
peripheral of multiple propositions, the most relevant propositions are identified herein.
In the first study, Toma and Hancock (2010) examined the role of physical attractiveness
and the level of deception applied to self-presentations for online daters. Sixty-nine on-line
daters made known the deceptions in the photos, explicitly verbal descriptors of ones height,
weight and age. They used linguistic analysis and independent judges to determine if deceit is
detectable in their photos and self-presentations. They concluded that the less confident the
online dater was with their physical appearance, the more they were likely to embellish their
appearance either through text or by altering the photo, based on the judges expertise of
deceptive linguistics. In their research IDT was only addressed in the discussion section, as
follows: According to interpersonal deception theory (Buller & Burgoon, 1996) communicative
behaviors vary systematically according to the contexts in which they occur. These contexts can
influence deception through providing or restricting access to certain social cues, facilitating or
inhibiting immediacy or altering conversational demands (p. 346).
This excerpt from Toma & Hancock (2010) addresses IDT as a broad functional
approach, instead of identifying the pre-interaction phase, specifically proposition number one
which addresses social cues and immediacy. In the case of immediacy, which offers a sense of

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

1! 6

psychological and physical closeness and like-ability (Mehrabian, 1972; Wagner, 2011), this can
be applicable as to whether or not the receiver likes and believes the photo and its descriptors are
deceptive. Also applicable to this study could be proposition number seven, in which goals and
motivations moderate strategic (and non-strategic) displays. DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer,
& Epstein (1996) reported that indeed, lies are self-centered: not in a derogatory way in this case,
but so ones self-presentation is well received by the user. Hence, the photo and its descriptors
could be strategically modified as self-centered effort to produce more like-ability as described
by proposition one and seven.
In the second study also by Toma and Hancock (2012), they investigated linguistic traces
of deception within online dating profiles and whether they are detectable by computer linguistic
and human analysis. The findings utilized IDT, to an extent, regarding how writing style and
deception intertwine. IDT was referenced as a broad functional approach, instead of within any
specific IDT proposition, within the H3 subheading of strategic cues associated with deception
in online dating profiles (p. 82) Their articulation of IDT was as follows: According to
interpersonal deception theory (Buller & Burgoon, 1996), the strategic choice of topics should
depend on liars personal goals and on the communication context (p. 82). In addition,
motivation, avoidance, compensation and trustworthiness (or lack thereof) are variables that
addressed the IDT context. The first part of the study is comprised of three components: (a)
closed ended questions seeking factual information; (b) open ended questions in which users
write about themselves in their own words, topics, and (c) photos. First, deception was identified
with linguistic cues pertaining to the deceivers cognitions and emotions and 2) the deceivers
were strategic with their efforts to manage their self-presentations.

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

1! 7

This present paper maintains that the aforementioned findings crossover all three sections
of IDT. First, for the pre-interaction patterns, Buller and Burgoon (1996) define proposition
number three as deceivers (a) engage in greater strategic activity designed to manage
information, behavior and image... (p. 218). Hence, within the self-presentation deceivers are
able to manage their persona through ambiguity or vague verbal content, linguistics and
nonverbal behavior (Buller and Burgoon,1996; Wagner, 2011). Also, proposition number seven
describes how receivers initial behavior patterns are a function of (a) their priorities among
instrumental, relational and identity objectives and (b) their intent to uncover deceit (Buller &
Burgoon, p. 223). Based on the nature and reputation of online dating, deception could be at the
forefront of the receiver. In this case the linguistics such as more pronouns and less possessives
demonstrate less than forthcoming communication (Wagner, 2011). Hence, proposition 12 is
manifested by the receivers behavior, signaling disbelief, needing more interaction to confirm, or
not, for level of deception. Lastly, the post-interaction proposition 17 may very well come into
play here as the receiver's cognitions and decoding skills make a judgment of the online
interaction. All three of these propositions explain the IDT process and how it impacts this
study.
In the third study DeAndrea et al. (2012) studied the role of biased cognitive processing,
establishing ground truth prior to self-assessment, and the role of perceived accountability,
regarding ones height and weight on self-presentations. Within dating deception research in the
online realm, they identified conflicting results. First, individuals make simple mistakes, [which
may be part of] simple ignorance of oneself. [they may not know their height or weight] ...a selfdirected response to self-affirmation or the avoidance of threats to self-esteem; second,

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

1! 8

inaccurate information is due to deliberate and strategic disinformation(p. 413) hoping to

alleviate embarrassment or suspicion. Also, DeAndrea et al. (2012) claim that the latter is more
common with online relationships, as they are typically not subject to immediate accountability,
but instead are subject to anticipated, if any, future interpersonal interaction. Each of these may
be a legitimate function.
DeAndrea et al. (2012) cite Buller & Burgoon (2012) in their references, but not in their
body of literature. Therefore, based on this study (investigating pre-interaction propositions of
the deceiver), this literature review suggests the following IDT propositions: (a) proposition
three, where deceivers engage in greater strategic activity designed to manage information...
image and (b) display more nonstrategic...cues (Buller & Burgoon p. 218). In this case the selfpresentations, online dating profiles, are modified and/or manipulated through falsification,
equivocation or concealment. Also, proposition seven is applicable whereas for self-gain goals
and motivations moderate strategic and nonstrategic behavior displays (Buller and Burgoon,
1996, p.223). In this instance, self-interest should allow for greater strategic behavior for more
plausible lies, and at the same time non-strategic behavior may manifest due to threat of ones
self-esteem and/or apprehension of recording actual weight/height due to ignorance.
For the fourth study, Valkenburg and Peter (2007) contended that in the 1990s the
conventional wisdom was that mostly shy and anxious people experienced difficulty in the
offline world of dating and thus were most open to the idea that for them a self-presentation
online was the place to find romance. They found this was no longer the case, that both introverts
and extroverts use online dating as a venue to find romance. All participants felt that online
dating provided a venue for more control over self-presentation with the possibility to more

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

1! 9

easily terminate an encounter (p. 850). Hence, online dating self-presentation was not a vehicle
to compensate for deficits they encounter in the offline world, but rather a pathway to future
face-to-face interaction through relationship formation.
Therefore, this study addresses both the pre and post-interactive phases of the IDT theory.
Specifically, the pre-interactive patterns of proposition number one which calls attention to
conversation demands, proposition number three addressing greater strategic activity designed to
manage information and image, and proposition number seven in terms of goals and motivations
which moderate strategic behavior (Buller & Burgoon, 1996). A combination of propositions 17
and 18 may both exist, based on either the sender or receiver or both who determined their level
of deception accuracy and success based on their priority of having more control over selfpresentation, along with the possibility to more easily terminate an encounter.
For the fifth study, Lawson and Leck (2006) did interesting research following online to
face-to-face relationships and how the participants managed trust, or lack thereof, when detecting
they had been deceived by false online self-presentations upon meeting in person (as referenced
in IDTs post-interaction outcomes). Many couples did follow conventional wisdom with abrupt
rejection and loss of face; however, there were cases where deception was probably discussed
because they did get married.
This is a great example of pre-and post-propositions because Lawson and Leck's (2006)
study follows the relationship from its online inception to its face-to-face meetings. Therefore,
this literature review suggests IDT proposition number five expecting honesty in an effort to
build trust. Additionally, proposition number nine is an added advantage for skilled senders who
are more likely to better dispense deception as truth (Buller & Burgoon,1996). Lastly,

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

2! 0

proposition number seventeen manifests at the face-to-face meeting where a judgment is

rendered based on whether the senders description of themselves matches their in-person selfpresentation.
Next, Gibbs et al. (2006) investigated self-disclosure (self-presentation) in what they
call the novel context of online dating relationships (p. 152). Their study examined online
dating as a window to view social penetration theory and social information processing theory
for strategic self-disclosure and relational success. Whereas the previous studies reviewed thus
far identified deception in online dating through self-presentation as harmful, this study reports
that the greater the amount of honest disclosure, particularly in self-presentation, the greater the
detrimental effect. Gibbs et al. (2006) add that those who are less honest feel it is an advantage to
not reveal negative flaws or characteristics which could turn off potential dating partners (p.
169). This notion is supported by the social penetration theory, which explains that negative
information is typically withheld in the early part of a relationships development. But, in this
study, 94% of the participants strongly disagreed that they had intentionally misrepresented
themselves in their self-presentation, and, at the same time, 87% strongly disagreed that
misrepresenting certain things in ones profile or online communication was acceptable (p.
169). This study underscores the discrepancy between what is (and is not) considered deception
in ones self-presentation within the context of online dating.
Taking up the detailed work of Buller and Burgoons (1996) proposition eighteen, Gibbs
et al. (2006) cite their definition of success as a function of terminal sender cognitions
(perceived suspicion) and (b) terminal receiver behavioral displays (p. 234). Gibbs et al. (2006)
claim that the most important predictors of (strategic) success are related to experience, in

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

2! 1

addition to cognitive and behavioral attributes; in other words, individuals learn from mistakes
and adapt their relational strategies accordingly. Moreover, the longer one has been in the dating
pool, the more versed they become in how to woo prospective partners based on a proficient
online self-presentation. Hence, this is complicated in the real world of online dating, especially
where future romance is largely formed through the online self-presentation profile. Also, based
on this study, the relational component is identified as a focal point of IDT in the pre-interaction
propositions. However, these propositions (number one and two) appear to need a modification
to accommodate online dating interaction because there is no prior relationship to reference in
order to strategize deception.
Lastly, Householder and Wong (2011) investigated the impact of mood and relational
closeness on the ability to detect deception within both friends and strangers. Their heuristic
work found whether a persons mood state, as happy or sad, impacted their deception detection
abilities. The results showed that ones ability to detect deception is affected by ones recent
activity; those in a happy mood were significantly less adept at deception detection then those in
a sad mood. In particular, individuals moods fluctuate from day to day activity, thereby altering
their ability to detect deception in friends and strangers. Hence, Householder and Wong (2011)
conclude that mood plays an important role within interpersonal interactions.
Even though Householder and Wong (2011) do not address online dating and selfpresentation per se, they do make their predictions of mood based on the IDT variables of
relational familiarity, truth bias and communication skills and initial suspicion. In relation to
online dating and mood, proposition one emphasizes the context of relational engagement and
conversational demands, i.e, an optimal self-presentation profile. They found that contrary to

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

2! 2

what IDT would predict relational closeness was not a significant predictor of perceived
deception. Thus their results offered mixed support for IDT (Householder and Wong, 2011, p.
118). Additionally, proposition 10 addresses truth biases; in this case, what is the mood of the
receiver as they peruse the online profile. Furthermore, proposition 10 identifies communication
skills; in this case, if the receiver is not in a good mood they may be more likely to notice
inconsistencies and/or deviations of the senders communication, i.e. the online profile. Lastly,
proposition 12, which focuses on the receivers suspicion, is manifested through nonstrategic
moves, such as mood and, to an extent, proposition 15, in which mood can cause deception and
suspicion to change over time (Buller & Burgoon, 1996). Householder and Wong (2011) are in
agreement with Buller & Burgoon (1996) that deception is much more than the sum of various
verbal and nonverbal components, although IDTs propositions fail to address the potential
emotional states [mood] of the deceived in the deception process (Buller & Burgoon, 1996, p.
107). In addition, it is possible to suggest that post-interaction outcomes, propositions 17 and 18,
reference both sender and receiver perception and detection of deception based on behavioral
displays (Buller & Burgoon, 1996).
Collectively, these research studies are either slightly informed by IDT or allude to the
ways in which the research can move the application of IDT forward. Moreover, none of these
current studies come close to providing thorough empirical support for IDT in an online dating,
self-presentation, and deception context. In short, these studies gloss over IDT, to the point
where it is a very minor framework in their research. Furthermore, IDT does not incorporate
There is currently no data analyzing the relationship between mood and self-presentation within
the online dating context and deception, however when adding the sum of these parts one could

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

2! 3

offer the hypothesis that mood is a variable when detecting deception within online selfpresentation for the purpose of romance. The following discussion section will describe how IDT
can move this body of research forward.
Discussion
The state of self-presentation and online dating through IDT in the realm of deception
has been identified as limited, yet valuable research. In an effort to expand this area of research,
this literature review was conducted based on the following goals: first, to identify and assess the
state of knowledge of self-presentation, online dating, and deception through the framework of
IDT; second, to explore how the body of research informs the theory, and how the theory helps
elucidate the body of research. This present paper notes that not one single study specifically
called attention to any particular phase of IDT(pre-interaction, iterative, or post -interaction) and
merely glossed over IDT without identifying or explaining the individual propositions, which has
implications for how IDT might be amended for future research.
As previously discussed the self-presentation for online dating is fraught with nuances
such as deceptive descriptors and photos of oneself for varying reasons. For example, people
want to look and describe themselves optimally in order to garner romance. Therefore, they
often possess emotional feelings and concerns about their self-presentation. Sometimes they
have online dating experience and know how to navigate the world of online dating and/or feel
justified with their level of deception.
Since its inception, IDT has been referenced substantially as a core explanation for the
deceptive process of interpersonal communication for many scholarly disciplines. In short, IDT
describes the dynamic process of (mutual) influence between parties who attempt to assess,

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

2! 4

manipulate, and identify deception or truth. Since IDT is a formidable piece of work, it seemed
like a natural fit for this literature review which explored the role of deception within selfpresentation online dating profiles. IDT presents a very fluid and detailed framework, with
multiple components such as key definitions, assumptions related to varying critical attributes,
key features of interactive communication and deception, and 18 propositions with general and
specific explanations (Buller & Burgoon, 1996). However, as this paper demonstrated, the
findings were limited with respect to the online dating, self-presentation, and deception
relationship. The findings were not limited exclusively because of IDT, but also in part because
self-presentation, online dating, and IDT research is in its infancy stages. Gibbs et al. (2006)
referenced online dating and self-presentation research as novel, and Valkenberg and Peter
(2007) claimed research on online dating and deception is scarce, thus reducing the body of
knowledge to report on.
Recall that Toma and Hancocks studies (2010, 2012) reference IDT without any
specificity to its components. The first study briefly mentioned IDT in the abstract and
discussion sections. The second study referenced IDT within the H3 subheading of strategic
cues associated with deception in online dating profiles (p. 82) as a broad functional approach.
This present paper contends the theory could have been informed with much more detail. It is
possible that Toma & Hancock (2010, 2012) did not specify which phase of IDT their findings
would fit because timing within an online dating context has not been addressed in IDT. Also,
DeAndrea et al. (2012) claim that online relationships are typically not subject to immediate
accountability, a limitation that is later discussed in this section. The only study with any length
and breadth of IDT as a framework was Householder and Wongs (2011) work discussing the

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

2! 5

relationship between IDT and mood. As noted, their findings were contrary to IDTs relational
premise. Due to the sheer detail of IDT, it is possible that few studies allocated the time to
review the abundance of detail within IDT, particularly in terms of its propositions, which is the
core of this theory.
In considering how the studies inform IDT, Householder and Wong (2011), Lawson and
Leck (2006), and Valkenburg and Peter (2007) reported that emotional components are a core
variables of online dating and deception. For example, Valkenberg and Peter (2007) identify
anxiety; Lawson and Leck (2006) identify anxiety and assertiveness; and Householder and Wong
(2011) identify mood. Notably, Gibb et al.s (2006) study addresses honesty as a varying factor
of deceit. Buller and Burgoon (1996) stipulate that ambiguity is part of deception. In this way,
honesty, per Gibb et al.s (2006) study, may seem benign, but may also be symptomatic of
delusions of grandeur, especially when based on ones subjective level of confidence or
overconfidence (Judge, Locke & Durham,1997). Or, it is plausible that individuals lie to
themselves, unless they are concerned they may get caught. Therefore, honesty is specifically
worth looking into as to where it belongs in the IDT framework, either in relational, cognitive,
and/or behavioral (strategic or non-strategic) contexts. Significantly, many scholars have already
discussed honesty and deception together in varying online dating scenarios (Buller & Burgoon,
1994,1996; Dunbar; Ramirez, and Burgoon (2003); Householder and Wong, 2011; DePaulo et
al.,1996; DePaulo and Kashy, 1996; Horan & Dillow , 2009; Wagner, 2011).
Limitations
IDT does not appear to address seemingly key variables in a succinct manner for online
dating behavior. As based on this literature review, (a) IDT is fluid and detailed (maybe too

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

2! 6

lengthy and complicated) to decipher, which may account for why the studies gloss over the
theory; (b) in online dating there is no absence of a relational component for IDT proposition
numbers one and two; (c) this present paper recommends that emotion (discreet or otherwise)
needs to be visible within the propositions; (d) honesty needs to be evaluated within the level of
deception, the core construct of IDT; (e) incorporate the role of time into the phases since it is
missing as synchronous (instant messaging) and/or asynchronous (e-mail) communication. In
addition, the time allocated for viewing and responding to possible deception, all without
nonverbal cues and the level of reciprocity, is not specifically part of any proposition of IDT,
beyond . To elaborate this point , it is not clear when or at which phase of IDT the online
interactive communication of deception is reciprocal (see Appendix B, proposition 16) ;(f) the
post-iterative phase of online dating, a seemingly longer and drawn out process than traditional
face-to-face dating, would include the cumulative effect of virtual behavior when eventually (if
at all) meeting face-to-face; (g) the post-iterative phase may also be the first step to starting over
the IDT process, since now there has been a relational context established and nonverbal cues are
assessable.
Conclusion
According to Burgoon (2005), the territory of deception is vast, but with the flurry of
changes in the world of online dating, the above findings are paramount in amending future
research efforts within the IDT framework. In these cases, IDT did attempt to inform the studies,
however due to the complexity of the current theory and the recent social acceptability of virtual
behavior, adjustments should be considered for the existing theory. This literature review would
like to suggest in an effort to meet the needs of the growing online dating social practice, an

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

2! 7

addendum to IDT, such as Deception in Virtual Environments, or DIVE, for short. Future
research should consider the limitations (a-g) as future suggestions for amending the theory.
There appears to be much work to be done for existing and future theories investigating the
social practice of online dating profiles through interpersonal deception theory (including DIVE)
with a focus on self-presentation.

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

2! 8

References
Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological
Bulletin, 91(1), 3-26. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.1.3
Barraket, J., & Waring, M. S. (2008). Getting it on (line) Sociological perspectives on e- dating.
Journal of Sociology, 44(2), 149-165.doi: 10.1177/1440783308089167
Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K.(1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6,
203-242.
Burgoon, J. (2005) Truth, lies and virtual worlds. The Carroll C. Arnold Distinguished
Lecture, national Communication association (5-20)
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Guerrero, L.K. (1995).Interpersonal deception:IX. effects of
social skill and nonverbal communication on deception success and detection accuracy.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology ,14, 289-311.
DeAndrea, D. C., Tong, S. T., , Liang, Y. J.k Levine, T. R., & Walther, J. B. (2012). When do
people misrepresent themselves to others? The effects of social desirability, ground truth,
and accountability on deceptive self-presentations. Journal of Communication, 62,
400-417, doi:10.1111/j1460-2466.2012.01646
DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in
everyday life. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 70(5), 979-995. doi:

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

2! 9

10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H.
(2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74-118. doi:
10.1037/0033- 2909.129.1.74
Dunbar, N. E., Ramirez, A., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). The effects of participation on the ability
to judge deceit. Communication Reports, 16(1), 23-33.
Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation
Processes in the Online Dating Environment. Journal Of Computer-Mediated
Communication,11(2), 415-441. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x
Gibbs, J., L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006) Self-presentation in online personals the
role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in internet
dating. Communication Research,33(2), 152-177.
Goffman. E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Anchor/
Doubleday.
Hardey, Michael. 2004. Mediated Relationships and the Possibilty of Romance. Infomration,
Communication and Society(7)2 :207-222.
Heino, R, Ellison, N., and Gibbs, J. (2010). Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor
in online dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(4), 427-447.
Horan, S. M., & Dillow, M. R. (2009). Deceivers and emotion: The relationships among
deceptive Message Type, relational qualities, and guilt and shame. Atlantic Journal Of
Communication, 17(4), 149-165. doi:10.1080/15456870903156126

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

3! 0

Householder, B. J., & Wong, N. H. (2011). Mood state or relational closeness: Explaining the
impacts of mood on the ability to detect deception in friends and strangers.
Communication Quarterly,59 (1), 104-122. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.541363
Jensen, M. L., & Burgoon, J. K. (2008). Interpersonal Deception Theory. In L. K. Guerrero & M.
L. Hecht (Eds.), The Nonverbal Communication Reader (pp. 421-43). Long Grove, Il:
Waveland Press.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job
satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior (19),
151188.
Lawson, H.M., & Leck, K. (2006). Dynamics of internet dating. Social Science Computer
Review,24(2), 189-208. doi: 10.1177/0894439305283402
Leary, M. R. (1995). Self-presentation: impression management and interpersonal behavior. Madison,
WI: Brown & Benchmark.

Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago; Aldine/Atherton

Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2010). Looks and lies: The role of physical attractiveness
in online dating self-presentation and deception. Communication
Research, 37(3), 335-351.doi: 10.1177/0093650209356437
Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2012).C. What lies beneath: the linguistic traces of deception in
online dating profiles. Journal of Communication 62(1), 78-97. doi:10.1111/j.4602466.2011.01619.
Valkenberg, p. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Who visits online dating sites? exploring some
characteristics of online daters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 849-852. doi:

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

10.1089/cpb.2007.9941
Wagner, L. (2011). Disharmony and matchless: interpersonal deception theory in
online dating. (Unpublished masters thesis). Liberty University,
Lynchburg, VA.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication impersonal, interpersonal, and
hyperpersonal interaction. Communication research, 23(1), 3-43. doi:
10.1177/009365096023001001
Walther, J. B. & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated
interaction. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 50-58. doi: 10.1111/j.
1468-2958.1992.tb00295.x
Wong, N. C. H. & Householder, B. J. (2004). Smoke and mirrors: explaining the impacts of
discrete emotions on processing of an anti-smoking PSA. Paper presented at their annual
meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.

3! 1

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

Appendix A
Propositions of Interpersonal Deception Theory, Buller and Burgoon (1996)

3! 2

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

3! 3

Appendix B
Propositions of Interpersonal Deception Theory, Buller and Burgoon (1996)
1. Sender and receiver cognitions and behaviors are influenced by the communication context in
which they occur.
2. Sender and receiver cognitions and behaviors are influenced by how familiar and positive the
relationship is between sender and receiver.
3. Deceptive displays include strategic ( intentional) activity to manage information, behavior
and image as well as nonstrategic ( leakage) behavior.
4. The more interactive the context and the more positive the relationship, the higher the
expectations for truthfulness; the less interactive and the less positive the relationship, the higher
the level of suspicion.
5. Sender and receiver initial expectations for honesty are positively related to degree of context
interactivity and positivity of relationship between sender and receiver.
6. Deceivers' initial detection apprehension and associated strategic activity are inversely related
to expectations for honesty (which are themselves a function of context interactivity and
relationship positivity).
7. Goals and motivations moderate strategic and nonstrategic behavior displays.
8. Deceivers must manage several different goals at once (e. g., being persuasive, projecting a
favorable image, maintaining a good relationship and keeping the conversation going.
9. Strategies are dynamic, so the behaviors that occur during deception fluctuate over time.
10. The deceivers communication is partly a function of what the receiver does. For example, a
deceiver may be forces to elaborate if the receiver asks probing questions.
11. Deceivers try to read receiver behavior for feedback on their credibility.
12. Deceivers adapt to their perceived success or failure.
13. Senders perceive suspicion when it is present.
14. Suspicion (perceived or actual) increases senders' (a) strategic and (b) nonstrategic behavior.
15. Deception and suspicion displays change over time.
16. Reciprocity is the predominant interaction adaptation pattern between senders and receivers
during interpersonal deception.
17. Receiver detection accuracy, bias, and judgments of sender credibility following an
interaction are a function of receiver cognitions, decoding skill, and sender behavioral displays.
18. Sender perceived deception success is a function of their cognitions & receiver behavior.

State of Online Dating Deception Through IDT

3! 4