Lisa’s analysis of Cornwell and Lundgren’s 2001 paper ‘Love on the Internet’ (http://misrepresentationinchatrooms.blogspot.com/) similarly follows on from my look at online deception. Lisa makes a number of interesting points but similarly makes a number of interesting assumptions about the nature of online communication and identity formation.
Anonymity, for Lisa, is an assumed starting point in chat rooms. Anonymity is the state of being nameless; online, especially in chat rooms, individuals create names for themselves, they may be different from those they use offline, but they are certainly not nameless. I think that use of the term ‘anonymity’ in relation to online behaviour is the closest thing we have but should probably be rethought.
Lisa’s other big assumption is that deception online is rife, and that we should not be surprised at the findings of Cornwell and Lundgren. This assumption reinforces the findings of Caspi and Gorsky (2006) in fact; users expect more online deception than is actually occurring. Also, the privileging of online deception above and beyond offline deception is, I think, always interesting. Why is lying about your job online more serious than offline, we wear makeup, we shape the stories about ourselves and we lie, both online and off. As Jordan (2005, mentioned in my previous post) says “The Internet did not create grifters… If anything, the Net has just changed the dynamics of the game” (Jordan, 2005:200). The internet did not inspire lies, it just changed the medium in which we lie.
Caspi, A. and P. Gorsky (2006) 'Online Deception: Prevalence, Motivation, and Emotion' in CyberPsychology & Behaviour 9(1)
Cornwell, B. and D.C. Lundgren (2001) ‘Love on the Internet: involvement and misrepresentation in romantic relationships in cyberspace vs. real space’ Computers in Human Behaviour 17(2)
Jordan, J.W. (2005) ‘A Virtual Death and a Real Dilemma: Identity, Trust and Community in Cyberspace’,
Southern Communication Journal 70(3)
Sunday 27 May 2007
A virtual death
I found Shroom_4000’s analysis of John Jordan’s 2005 paper ‘A Virtual Death and a Real Dilemma’ (http://shroom4000.blogspot.com/) to be an interesting follow up to the paper I analysed (Caspi and Gorsky, 2006). Both focussed on online deception but from different sides of the same coin. I found Shroom_4000’s dismissal of Jordan’s paper as a “referenced rant” unnecessary and untrue however their analysis suggested some interesting points.
I feel that Jordan’s paper really highlights the creation of the divide between the incidence of online deception and perception of it. The story of the Kaycee hoax illustrates the point at which individuals online form the false (as we saw in Caspi and Gorsky, 2006) belief that people online deceive at a much higher rate than they in fact do. Sure, as Shroom_4000 points out, this is not the first hoax online, nor will it be the last; but as Jordan points out the internet is certainly not the first medium used to deceive people.
I found the most interesting point of Jordan’s paper (2005) to be the use, and subsequent denial, of the dialogic nature of identity by the community members. That is, the sudden switch between a community that acknowledges – in some form – the two-way conception of identity between the context (in this case the community itself) and the individual to the sudden denial that Debbie Swenson could be a creation of the community. I feel that this switch was brushed over by Shroom_4000’s analysis but not to the detriment of the examination.
Caspi, A. and P. Gorsky (2006) 'Online Deception: Prevalence, Motivation, and Emotion' in CyberPsychology & Behaviour 9(1)
Jordan, J.W. (2005) ‘A Virtual Death and a Real Dilemma: Identity, Trust and Community in Cyberspace’, Southern Communication Journal 70(3)
I feel that Jordan’s paper really highlights the creation of the divide between the incidence of online deception and perception of it. The story of the Kaycee hoax illustrates the point at which individuals online form the false (as we saw in Caspi and Gorsky, 2006) belief that people online deceive at a much higher rate than they in fact do. Sure, as Shroom_4000 points out, this is not the first hoax online, nor will it be the last; but as Jordan points out the internet is certainly not the first medium used to deceive people.
I found the most interesting point of Jordan’s paper (2005) to be the use, and subsequent denial, of the dialogic nature of identity by the community members. That is, the sudden switch between a community that acknowledges – in some form – the two-way conception of identity between the context (in this case the community itself) and the individual to the sudden denial that Debbie Swenson could be a creation of the community. I feel that this switch was brushed over by Shroom_4000’s analysis but not to the detriment of the examination.
Caspi, A. and P. Gorsky (2006) 'Online Deception: Prevalence, Motivation, and Emotion' in CyberPsychology & Behaviour 9(1)
Jordan, J.W. (2005) ‘A Virtual Death and a Real Dilemma: Identity, Trust and Community in Cyberspace’, Southern Communication Journal 70(3)
Monday 30 April 2007
Online deception
This blog will be looking at the paper "Online Deception: Prevalence, Motivation and Emotion" by Avner Caspi and Paul Gorsky (2006). The paper outlines a questionnaire-based study performed by Caspi and Gorsky that focusses on online deception.
Caspi and Gorsky (2006) looked at online deception from three perspectives: prevalence, motivation and emotion. Prevalence was examined both as perceived and actual prevalence. That is, they asked in their questionnaire 'how often do you deceive online?', 'how often do you think others deceive online?' and 'how often do you think are you deceived online?'. Motivation was also investigated using the questionnaire and focused on positive causes for deception from identity play to privacy concerns. Emotion was identified as feelings experienced while deceiving rather than when aware of deception.
Caspi and Gorsky (2006) located this research within the tradition of psychology, they bring to the study terms and methods used traditionally in this field, much of their background research is based in psychology theory. More specifically their interests seem to lie in communication theory, social psychology and human behaviour. The paper was published in the journal 'CyberPsychlogy & Behaviour' which further locates this particular research.
Caspi and Gorsky relate online deception to the textual qualities of CMC (computer mediated communication) applications. They link visual anonymity to ease of deception, specifically simple textual lies, but then cite studies that show a correlation between visual anonymity and honesty. They do not explicitly state why they privilege deception over honesty in online communication in this study.
Caspi and Gorsky (2006) go on to look at a number of case studies that have been used in previous analyses of online deception. These vary from Alex the American psychiatrist who created an online identity, Joan, to Turkle’s study of people who partook in identity play. They use the term “Munchausen on the Internet” (Caspi and Gorsky, 2006:54) for those who create alternate identities who have illnesses or disabilities, this again locates this study in the tradition of psychology using terms from this field in new ways, perhaps to validate their research.
They go on to look at the actual prevalence of online deception. They cite studies such as Curtis (in Caspi and Gorsky, 2006:55) that claim that online deception common than believed in the wider sphere. Their study reinforced the levels found in a number of cited studies to a varying degree. Caspi and Gorsky found 29% of respondents deceive online, this ranged from deceiving 'all the time' to 'sometimes' (2006:56). This was compared to the 73% of respondents who believed that deception was widespread, but, surprisingly, the minority did not believe that they were being deceived while online. I felt that this discrepancy in belief was a key issue raised by the study but that it was not analysed further than offering up two unsatisfactory explanations. The responses regarding deception should probably be taken with caution.
The next set of questions was directed at motivation to deceive. This issue is a key one in social psychology. Caspi and Gorsky (2006) restrict their study to positive motivations. They found that only a small group selected "other reasons" (57) which they assumed included all negative motives. I thought that this is problematic and threatened to bias the results towards the positive options. However, the main motivations for deceiving were found to be identity play and safety concerns. These both seem to be linked to a desire for anonymity and freedom from real world identity.
The third group of findings centered on emotions felt while deceiving. This section received the least analysis but Caspi and Gorsky (2006) did conclude that "enjoyment" (57) was most commonly felt (84% of responders). This however may be linked again to the options given and to the previous questions about motivation which may have biased the respondents towards positive experiences of deceiving.
Finally Caspi and Gorsky (2006) compare real life to online deception. They claim that the main difference between these two situations is that online deception is an enjoyable experience whereas face-to-face provokes negative feelings of guilt and fear. They further link this to the anonymity of online interactions; they fail however to differentiate between different kinds of online interaction that can vary dramatically in level of anonymity. The ease of deception online is further linked to reduced moral standards and the online disinhibition effect.
Despite a few problems this study seems to guide research in interesting directions and raises some interesting theoretical questions related to ethical practices online and the causes and effects of online activities.
Reference List:
Caspi, A. and P. Gorsky (2006) 'Online Deception: Prevalence, Motivation, and Emotion' in CyberPsychology & Behaviour 9(1)
This paper can be found at: http://www.liebertonline.com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.54
Caspi and Gorsky (2006) looked at online deception from three perspectives: prevalence, motivation and emotion. Prevalence was examined both as perceived and actual prevalence. That is, they asked in their questionnaire 'how often do you deceive online?', 'how often do you think others deceive online?' and 'how often do you think are you deceived online?'. Motivation was also investigated using the questionnaire and focused on positive causes for deception from identity play to privacy concerns. Emotion was identified as feelings experienced while deceiving rather than when aware of deception.
Caspi and Gorsky (2006) located this research within the tradition of psychology, they bring to the study terms and methods used traditionally in this field, much of their background research is based in psychology theory. More specifically their interests seem to lie in communication theory, social psychology and human behaviour. The paper was published in the journal 'CyberPsychlogy & Behaviour' which further locates this particular research.
Caspi and Gorsky relate online deception to the textual qualities of CMC (computer mediated communication) applications. They link visual anonymity to ease of deception, specifically simple textual lies, but then cite studies that show a correlation between visual anonymity and honesty. They do not explicitly state why they privilege deception over honesty in online communication in this study.
Caspi and Gorsky (2006) go on to look at a number of case studies that have been used in previous analyses of online deception. These vary from Alex the American psychiatrist who created an online identity, Joan, to Turkle’s study of people who partook in identity play. They use the term “Munchausen on the Internet” (Caspi and Gorsky, 2006:54) for those who create alternate identities who have illnesses or disabilities, this again locates this study in the tradition of psychology using terms from this field in new ways, perhaps to validate their research.
They go on to look at the actual prevalence of online deception. They cite studies such as Curtis (in Caspi and Gorsky, 2006:55) that claim that online deception common than believed in the wider sphere. Their study reinforced the levels found in a number of cited studies to a varying degree. Caspi and Gorsky found 29% of respondents deceive online, this ranged from deceiving 'all the time' to 'sometimes' (2006:56). This was compared to the 73% of respondents who believed that deception was widespread, but, surprisingly, the minority did not believe that they were being deceived while online. I felt that this discrepancy in belief was a key issue raised by the study but that it was not analysed further than offering up two unsatisfactory explanations. The responses regarding deception should probably be taken with caution.
The next set of questions was directed at motivation to deceive. This issue is a key one in social psychology. Caspi and Gorsky (2006) restrict their study to positive motivations. They found that only a small group selected "other reasons" (57) which they assumed included all negative motives. I thought that this is problematic and threatened to bias the results towards the positive options. However, the main motivations for deceiving were found to be identity play and safety concerns. These both seem to be linked to a desire for anonymity and freedom from real world identity.
The third group of findings centered on emotions felt while deceiving. This section received the least analysis but Caspi and Gorsky (2006) did conclude that "enjoyment" (57) was most commonly felt (84% of responders). This however may be linked again to the options given and to the previous questions about motivation which may have biased the respondents towards positive experiences of deceiving.
Finally Caspi and Gorsky (2006) compare real life to online deception. They claim that the main difference between these two situations is that online deception is an enjoyable experience whereas face-to-face provokes negative feelings of guilt and fear. They further link this to the anonymity of online interactions; they fail however to differentiate between different kinds of online interaction that can vary dramatically in level of anonymity. The ease of deception online is further linked to reduced moral standards and the online disinhibition effect.
Despite a few problems this study seems to guide research in interesting directions and raises some interesting theoretical questions related to ethical practices online and the causes and effects of online activities.
Reference List:
Caspi, A. and P. Gorsky (2006) 'Online Deception: Prevalence, Motivation, and Emotion' in CyberPsychology & Behaviour 9(1)
This paper can be found at: http://www.liebertonline.com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.54
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)