Payal Arora and her colleagues argue that Facebook has become a widely-used tool for finding romance in the global south, especially among marginalized youth. Yet this reliance on Facebook opens users up to the possibility of deception, forcing many to develop a dynamic online deception literacy. In this response paper, I unpack the notion of online deception literacy by reviewing the existing social scientific literature on this topic. I discuss (1) the prevalence of deception in online romance: (2) people’s ability to detect online deception; (3) the cues people use to detect online deception; and (4) the usefulness of those cues in accurately gauging deception. I highlight avenues for future research, especially those inspired by the experience of marginalized users in the global south.
CouchDLiamputtongPPittsM (2012) What are the real and perceived risks and dangers of online dating? Perspectives from online daters: health risks in the media. Health, Risk & Society14: 697–714.
2.
DePauloBMLindsayJJMaloneBE. (2003) Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin129: 74–118.
3.
EkmanP (2009) Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage (Revised Edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
4.
GibbsJLEllisonNBHeinoRD (2006) Self-presentation in online personals the role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research33: 152–177.
HancockJTTomaCL (2009) Putting your best face forward: the accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication59: 367–386.
7.
HancockJTWoodworthMTGoorhaS (2010) See no evil: the effect of communication medium and motivation on deception detection. Group Decision and Negotiation19: 327–343.
8.
LarrimoreLJiangLLarrimoreJ. (2011) Peer to peer lending: the relationship between language features, trustworthiness, and persuasion success. Journal of Applied Communication Research39: 19–37.
RegeA (2009) What’s love got to do with it? Exploring online dating scams and identity fraud. International Journal of Cyber Criminology3: 494–512.
11.
TomaCL (2014) Counting on friends: cues to perceived trustworthiness in Facebook profiles. In: Proceedings of international conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM), Ann Arbor, MI, 1–4June, pp. 495–504. Palo Alto, CA: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Press.
12.
TomaCLD’AngeloJD (2015) Tell-tale words: linguistic cues used to infer the expertise of online medical advice. Journal of Language and Social Psychology34: 25–45.
13.
TomaCLHancockJT (2012) What lies beneath: the linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communication62: 78–97.
14.
TomaCLHancockJTEllisonNB (2008) Separating fact from fiction: an examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin34: 1023–1036.
15.
TomaCLJiangCLHancockJT (2016) Lies in the eye of the beholder: asymmetric beliefs about one’s own and others’ deceptiveness in mediated and face-to-face communication. Communication Research. Epub ahead of print 27February. DOI: 10.1177/0093650216631094.
16.
Van SwolLMBraunMTKolbMR (2015) Deception, detection, demeanor, and truth bias in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research42: 1116–1142.
17.
VrijA (2008) Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
18.
WhittyMTBuchananT (2012) The online romance scam: a serious cybercrime. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking15: 181–183.
