Deception and Perception te Online Dating
By: Brenda Palacios
Online dating provides a different kampplaats for meeting potential significant others. It is a medium ter which you can, ter a way, sell yourself to others. There is a common misconception that deception is a component of online dating, one te which people exaggerate or blatantly lie about themselves ter order to get “matches”. However, all deception may not be intentional. The way that one perceives themselves differs from the way they are perceived by others. It is this difference ter perception that creates the idea of deception while online dating.
When two people are face-to-face there are two different forms of communication, traditional/wordy and nonverbal/physical cues. However, communication through cyberspace only permits for written word communication. Therefore, the way an individual is able to present themselves switches radically. People have more control about their self-presentation because they don’t have to factótum ter the unintentional cues they are providing off and where perception could turn into deception.
A examine investigating self-presentation ter online dating found that there are three different kinds of “self”: the “actual self”, the “ideal self”, and the “ought self” (Ellison, 418). The “actual self” are the attributes an individual actually posses, the “ideal self” are the attributes an individual would ideally posses, and the “ought self” are the attributes an individual ought to posses (Ellison, 418). The online dating sphere provides malleability inbetween thesis three different kinds of “self”. However, you cannot stay online, the end purpose of online dating is to physically meet your “matches”. Therefore, you are held accountable to information you have exchanged virtually, so why do people lie?
Since online dating requires an individual to present themselves their perception of their “actual” and “ideal” self may be intertwined. For example, a woman may lie about hier weight but then work to achieve that weight before she physically meets hier “match” (Ellison, 426). While there wasgoed deception at very first, hier match would be clueless to this. Additionally, an individual may perceive themselves to have an promedio figure size while their match might perceive them spil skinny or stronger than promedio. While this differentiation te perception may be construed spil deception it wasgoed not intentional.
The same probe found that 86% of their participants felt that others “misrepresented their appearance” (Ellison, 419). Psychologist Dr. John Schafer says that this should not come spil a verrassing given that dating profiles are an individual’s very first foot forward and can be considered omschrijving to a very first date (Schafer, 1). On a very first date everyone strives to look their very best. Women spend a little more time getting ready, studs metal out their clothing, and behavioral quirks and personality flaws are camouflaged (Schafer, 1). He considers that this very first foot forward can be construed spil deception and can cause feelings of frustration and betrayal during the very first physical interaction. However, only 14% of participants reported that they misrepresented an facet of themselves on their online dating profile (Ellison, 419). This discrepancy can be due to the inter-connectivity inbetween an individual’s “actual” and “ideal” self. An individual may not realize that they are actually describing their “ideal” self.
Dr. Schafer argues that thesis discrepancies should come spil no verrassing (Schafer, 1). He argues that people are merely signifying themselves te a way that would be attractive to others. For example, individuals may use a photograph from a duo years back or write on their profile that they are into hiking when ter reality they hike merienda every two years (Ellison, 426). Thesis are examples of an individual’s “ideal” self. Individuals are not purposely deceiving others they merely perceive themselves spil the person they want to be.
However, there are cases of blatant deception ter online dating. The same explore displayed that individuals that are “older than a natural breakpoint (i.e., 35 or 50) will adjust their age so that they will still vertoning up ter search results” (Ellison, 427). This behavior wasgoed most likely exposed during zometeen conversation and proved to be socially acceptable. This type of deception wasgoed performed due to the parameters of the dating sites themselves (Ellison, 427). Some online dating sites provide a “quick search” with descriptors such spil age, gender, or geographic location (Ellison, 427). Ter order to circumvent the search parameters individuals felt the need to adjust reality. What is the line inbetween socially accepted and not accepted deception? Is it indeed deception if it is cleared up during subsequent conversation?
Online profiles are meant to attract attention to an individual. They are the very first step towards a potential relationship and are therefore by nature written ter a way to facilitate this desire. However, each profile is subjected to two different perspectives. This creates the need for a comprobación inbetween self-promotion and accurate self-representation.