Cases of identity deception on the Internet are not uncommon. Several cases of a revealed identity deception have been reported in the media. In this article, the authors examine a case of deception in an online community composed primarily of information technology professionals. In this case, an established community member(DF) invented a character(Nowheremom) whom he fell in love with and who was eventually killed in a tragic accident. When other members of the community eventually began to question Nowheremom’s actual identity, DF admitted that he invented her. The discussion board was flooded with reactions to DF’s revelation. The authors propose several explanations for the perpetration of identity deception, including psychiatric illness, identity play, and expressions of true self. They also analyze the reactions of community members and propose three related explanations (social identity, deviance, and norm violation) to account for their reactions. It is argued that virtual communities’ reactions to such threatening events provide invaluable clues for the study of group processes on the Internet.
Abrams, D., Thomas, J., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Numerical distinctiveness, social identity and gender salience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 87-92.
2.
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgements. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 117-190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie.
3.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9).
4.
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K.Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (in press). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues.
5.
Bechar-Israeli, H. (1998). From <Bonehead> to <cLoNehEAd>: Nicknames, play, and identity on Internet relay chat. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol1/issue2/bechar.html
6.
Beniger, J. (1987). Personalization of mass media and the growth of pseudo-community. Communication Research, 14, 352-371.
7.
Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Billings, L. S. (1999). Black sheep and expectancy violation: Integrating two models of social judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 523-542.
8.
Branscombe, N. R., Wann, D., Noel, J. G., & Coleman, J. (1993). In-group and out-group extremity: Importance of the threatened social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 381-388.
9.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.
10.
Bruckman, A. (1993). Gender swapping on the Internet. Retrieved from ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/gender-swapping.txt
11.
Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of impression management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 406-415.
12.
Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1997). The kindness of strangers: On the usefulness of electronic weak ties fortechnical advice. In S. Kiesler(Ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 303-322). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Cornwell, B., & Lundgren, D. C. (2001). Love on the Internet: Involvement and misrepresentation in romantic relationships in cyberspace vs. realspace. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 197-211.
14.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 504-553). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
15.
Curtis, P. (1997). Mudding: Social phenomena in text-based virtual realities. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 121-142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
Danet, B. (1998). Text as mask: Gender, play, and performance on the Internet. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting CMC and community (pp. 129-158). London: Sage.
17.
Danet, B., Ruedenberg, L., & Rosenbaum-Tamari, Y. (1998). “Hmmm... Where’s that smoke coming from?” Writing, play and performance on Internet Relay Chat. In F. Sudweeks, M. McLaughlin, & S. Rafaeli (Eds.), Network and Netplay: Virtual groups on the Internet (pp. 41-76). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
DeCremer, D., & Vanbeselaere, N. (1999). I am deviant, because...: The impact of situational factors upon the black sheep effect. Psychologica Belgica, 39, 71-79.
19.
DeRidder, R., & Tripathi, R. C. (1992). Norm violation and intergroup relations. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
20.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. G. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influence upon social judgment. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.
21.
Dietz-Uhler, B. (1999). Defensive reactions to group-relevant information. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2, 17-29.
22.
Dietz-Uhler, B., & Murrell, A. (1998). Effects of social identity and threat on self-esteem and attributions. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 1-12.
23.
Donath, J. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 29-59). London: Routledge.
24.
Doosje, B., Spears, R., & Koomen, W. (1995). When bad isn’t all bad: Strategic use of sample information in generalization and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 642-655.
25.
Earle, W. B. (1986). The social context of social comparison: Reality versus reassurance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 159-168.
26.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: In-group identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 617-626.
27.
Feldman, M. D. (2000). Munchausen by Internet: Detecting factitious illness and crisis on the Internet. Southern Medical Journal, 93, 669-672.
28.
Finch, J. F., & Cialdini, R. B. (1989). Anotherindirect tactic of (self-)image management. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 222-232.
29.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
30.
Haythornthwaite, C., Wellman, B., & Garton, L. (1998). Work and community via computer-mediated communication. In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the Internet (pp. 199-226). New York: Academic Press.
31.
Joinson, A. N. (1999). Anonymity, disinhibition and social desirability on the Internet. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 31, 433-438.
32.
Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in CMC: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177-192.
33.
Jones, S. (1995). Community in the information age. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 10-35). London: Sage.
34.
Kraut R., Patterson M., Lundmark V., Kiesler S., Mukopadhyay T., & Scherlis W. (1998). Internet paradox - A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?American Psychologist, 53(9): 1017-1031.
35.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. (1994). Group socialization: Theory and research. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 305-336). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
36.
Licklider, J.C. R., & Taylor, R. W. (1968). The computer as a communication device. Science and Technology, 76, 21-31.
37.
MacKinnon, R. C. (1997). Punishing the persona: Correctional strategies for the virtual offender. In S. Jones (Ed.), Virtual culture: Identity and communication in cybersociety (pp. 206-235). London: Sage.
38.
Marques, J. M. (1990). The black sheep effect: Outgroup homogeneity in social comparisons settings. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Critical and constructive advances (pp. 131-151). New York: Springer-Verlag.
39.
Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., Paez, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, social identification, and rejection of deviant group members. In M. A. Hogg & S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology (pp. 400-424). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
40.
Marques, J. M., Robalo, E. M., & Rocha, S. A. (1992). Ingroup bias and the “black sheep” effect: Assessing the impact of social identification and perceived variability on group judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 331-352.
41.
Marques, J. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity in inter- and intra-group situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 287-292.
42.
Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. P. (1988). The “black sheep effect”: Extremity of judgments toward ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1-16.
43.
Matthews, D., & Dietz-Uhler, B. (1998). The black sheep effect: How positive and negative advertisements affects voters’ perceptions of the sponsor of the advertisement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1902-1914.
44.
McKenna, K.Y. A., & Bargh, J. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity “demarginalization” through virtual group participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 681-694.
45.
McKenna, K.Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M.E. J. (in press). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction. Journal of Social Issues.
46.
O’Brien, J. (1999). Writing in the body: Gender (re)production in online interaction. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 76-106). London: Routledge.
47.
Pfuhl, E. H., & Henry, S. (1993). The deviance process (3rd ed.). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
48.
Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D. (1981). Emergency prevention. New York: Academic.
49.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1999). Social identity, group norms, and “deindividuation”: Lessons from computer-mediated communication for social influence in the group. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 164-183). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
50.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 341-371.
51.
Preece, J. (1999). Empathic communities: Balancing emotional and factual communication. Interacting With Computers, 12, 63-77.
52.
Reid, E. (1995). Virtual worlds: Culture and imagination. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 164-183). London: Sage.
53.
Reid, E. (1998). The self and the Internet: Variations on the illusion of one self. In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the Internet (pp. 29-42). New York: Academic Press.
54.
Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
55.
Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
56.
Schachter, S. (1961). Deviation, rejection and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190-207.
57.
Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 187, 60.
58.
Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after group success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 382-388.
59.
Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121-134.
60.
Stone, A. R. (1991). Will the real body please stand up? Boundary stories about virtual cultures. In M. Benedilt (Ed.), Cyberspace (pp. 81-118). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen. New York: Simon & Schuster.
62.
Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. (1989). Self-categorization theory and social influence. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 233-275). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
63.
Van Gelder, L. (1991). The strange case of the electronic lover. In C. Dunlop & R. Kling (Eds.), Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social choice. Boston: Academic Press.
64.
Wann, D. L., & Dolan, T. J. (1994). Attributions of highly identified sports spectators. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 783-792.
