Research estimates that people on average tell one to two lies every day (Hancock et al., 2004). Usually these acts of deception are seen by the individual engaged in them as being trivial in nature and of little harm or consequence, such as telling someone they are looking well, have lost weight etc. With the growth of the virtual world, including chat rooms, dating sites, and social media, there are “new” arenas and environments where deception can occur, and for a variety of reasons e.g., a study by Utz (2005), found that women in chat rooms, engaged in deception for reasons of safety, and to avoid harassment etc., (to reinforce their anonymity) whereas men engaged in deception, hiding and masking their identity, so that they could be more expressive and reveal more about their true thoughts and feelings etc. Paradoxically, when someone’s anonymity is increased they are more likely to be honest, truthful, and engage in self-disclosure (Ma et al., 2016). However, the internet has also become a place where predatory individuals, can use the virtual world to engage in deception for financial and/or sexual gain. Whilst, for many of us, receiving an email from a Nigerian prince, informing us that they need to deposit several million dollars in a bank account, and that our help is required to do so, is an obvious act of deception, for others it was/is not. Whilst certain studies have shown that face-to-face scams tend to be more frequent and more costly than virtual ones, this doesn’t mean that virtual/online deception doesn’t present a serious threat. Also with digital deception, a deceiver doesn’t have to worry about a tremor in their voice and/or hand (non-verbal cues) etc., when engaged in deceit, and usually have a greater degree of time to construct answers and responses to questions – even in real time – than they would in a face-to-face conversation. In this article I want to look at some categories/types of digital deception, and some of the ways we can identify if “someone” we are dealing with is engaged in deceit or is in fact authentic.

Hancock (2007) classifies online or virtual deceptions, as falling into one of seven categories/classifications (these aren’t necessarily restricted to the online world):

  • 1. Masking – failing to disclose certain important pieces of information e.g., if a blog writer who appears to be writing an “unbiased” review of something is in fact being paid to do so.
  • 2. Dazzling – sending an email that promotes a “free trial” of something etc. but is in fact intended to get someone to sign up for a newsletter and further advertisements without them being aware.
  • 3. Decoying – sending someone a link to a free Dewalt Drill, that just requires them to pay for shipping etc., and requires them to give payment and shipping information/details.
  • 4. Mimicking – taking on another person or institution’s identity e.g., pretending to be a bank or credit card who is asking you to confirm your identity by logging on to an illegitimate site (which mirrors the legitimate one) via a link provided in the email/communication.
  • 5. Inventing – an Ebay or Amazon store owner etc., who doesn’t actually own any of the inventory/stock they have for sale.
  • 6. Relabeling – deliberately trying to mislead individuals about something e.g., packaging and promoting a piece of swamp in Florida as a prime real estate opportunity etc.
  • 7. Double play – this is a method where the scammer/deceiver convinces the other party that they are taking advantage of them e.g., sending someone an “unintentional” email that looks like it contains confidential/secret information between two parties, about the sale of a stock at a ridiculously low price, in order for them to take advantage of this information, and buy it etc.

It should be noted that deception, both online and face-to-face, tends to fall into two categories: opportune and planned. An example of “opportune” deception would be when a friend, co-worker, or acquaintance messages/emails us about a favorite film or tv-show that we should watch, which we actually hate, and we respond saying that it sounds good i.e., we are caught in the moment, and due to social embarrassment and/or the need, not to start an argument we agree with a position/viewpoint we don’t actually believe in etc. A planned act of deception, might involve someone sending us an email, with an offer or deal, that is intended to get us to hand over personal details such as our credit card number, password, social security number and/or shipping/home address. Generally, opportune deception results in less serious consequences than planned ones, as the message/communication – at least at the time – doesn’t contain any harmful intent.

Three basic ways of determining virtual deception are to look for the following:

  • 1. Inconsistencies – for example, does the domain address of the email a message is being sent from match the domain name from which the offer came e.g., if an “offer” related to a particular company such as Ace hardware comes from a Gmail or Hotmail account, or if when you hover over the link (don’t click it) it shows a different website/domain than Ace, it’s likely to be a scam/hoax.
  • 2. Lack of/or too many details -Those engaged in deception, both online and face-to-face, tend to misjudge the number of details/facts they should give. Often, they will give too few details, because this prevents the receiver of information being able to ask too many questions, which could cause the deceiver to slip up, or when engaged in acts like plagiarism they become too verbose, adding their own words to the original author’s (increasing both the word count and complexity of the statement).
  • 3. Inconsistencies and over correction – If a scam is targeted at a large number of people, the person engaged in deception may have trouble keeping track, of who is who, and what they have told to each person, meaning that in individual chats and conversations, inconsistencies start to occur. Another feature of deceptive statement is that the author may engage in over-correction(s) in an attempt to be seen as more honest; this normally involves correcting minor rather than major facts.

In next week’s article I will look at statement analysis/composition, and linguistic factors which may indicate that the communication you are receiving is deceptive rather than truthful, whether that is a conversation/chat, an email, or a dating profile someone has put up etc.