خطر و مزیت های رابطه های مجازی

8

THE PERILS AND PROMISE OF RELATIONSHIPS IN A DIGITAL WORLD

Online everyone can be who they want to be. It only gets tricky when you meet them in the real world.

—TOKII.COM

This is a true story. A love story of sorts, one that could only happen in our digital age. It involves a then-sixty-eight-year-old professor and a Czech bikini model. This particular academician was not lacking in brainpower: He worked as a theoretical particle physicist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, where he had been employed for three decades.

The professor, still lonely after his recent divorce, visited some online dating sites, where he connected with the Czech beauty. After a flurry of emails, chat room sessions, and instant messages, it became obvious to the professor that the stunning model wanted to give up her career and marry him. It never seemed to cross his mind that the woman on the Internet might have been an imposter or why a young, attractive model would choose him as a husband.

Sadly, he found out why, the hard way. After many unsuccessful attempts by the professor to speak with the young woman on the phone, she agreed to go from virtual reality to real life. All the professor had to do was fly down to Bolivia, where she was currently working, and meet her. This he readily agreed to do. The rest of the story is almost too painful to relate.

Upon arriving late in Bolivia due to a ticketing problem, the professor discovered that his “girlfriend” had already left. However, she told him not to worry, she would send him a ticket to Brussels, Belgium, where he could join her while she did a photo shoot. Her only request was to bring along a bag that she had left behind in Bolivia. At the Buenos Aires airport, the bag was searched. Hidden inside were 1,980 grams of cocaine. He did end up being charged for drug smuggling, but fortunately for him he received a very light sentence.

And what was the real Czech bikini model’s reaction to all this? Fear, over her name being associated with drug smuggling and “sympathy” for her academic suitor, who, of course, she had never met on the Internet or anywhere else. According to Maxine Swann, a reporter who did an elaborate story on the incident for the New York Times, the professor “reported that he was a month into his prison stay before his fellow prisoners managed to convince him that the woman he thought he’d been in touch with all this time had probably been a man impersonating her.”

Based on this story, you might think I recommend abstaining from using the digital world to meet people and make friends. However, nothing could be further from the truth. As long as you know how to tell the friends from the frauds (which this chapter will show you), the online landscape offers some distinct advantages.

THE INTERNET IS INTROVERT-FRIENDLY

Introverts disclose more information on social networks than they do in face-to-face encounters. This is because the Internet format allows introverts sufficient time to formulate meaningful responses. Introverts also experience difficulty initiating conversations, especially with strangers. Social networks eliminate this added social pressure. Social networks also allow introverts to express themselves without constantly being interrupted by extroverts. Finally, introverts are more willing to say what they really believe, not having to worry about the direct exposure to negative feedback that can occur in face-to-face communication.

Ease of Finding “Common Ground”

If ever there was a chance for the Law of Similarity (Chapter 4) to operate, it would be on the Internet. When it comes to finding common ground with individuals possessing similar interests, the digital world provides the perfect environment for matchups. Want to find fellow stamp collectors? There’s an Internet group for that. Interested in people who exhibit antique automobiles? There’s an Internet group for that. Looking for that special group of sports fanatics who also volunteer at animal shelters and eat organic apples from the state of Washington? There’s an Internet group for that. Well, maybe.

The point is that with millions of people on the Internet and thousands of chat rooms and special interest groups devoted to almost any activity, real or imaginable, the chance to develop friendships with people sharing similar interests is never more than a click away.

Numbers

If you’re looking for a friend with specific qualifications and interests, where would you rather look: in a bar or other public place that might hold a hundred people, or on the Internet, where tens of millions of people await to be clicked on? The sheer number of people that go online increases your chances of finding persons of interest who best fit your particular needs.

Less Chance of Being Embarrassed

Anonymity and the ability to start and end relationships with a click of a mouse make the online user much less likely to face the humiliation and embarrassment that comes with face-to-face disapproval or outright rejection. Of course, should an online user post information and pictures of a questionable nature, the chance of embarrassment definitely is increased (as has been the case with numerous high-profile politicians and celebrities over the years).

The Ability to Prequalify Potential Friends

Particularly on dating sites, individuals looking for partners have the opportunity to describe what they want in a potential respondent. Of course, not all people reading the qualifications abide by them. Many individuals will contact you on the Internet even when they do not possess the qualifications you are looking for. Still, screening mechanisms on certain online sites can be beneficial in limiting the number of people who contact you.

The Opportunity to “Check People Out”

The Internet is information-rich. It provides a wealth of information for those people who know how to get it or are interested in learning more about something or somebody. The Internet should be seen as a tool to learn more about the people you are considering to develop relationships with, whether that person is someone you meet face-to-face or online. Obviously, this information search is more important for potential online friends, because you don’t have the advantage of information-gathering through verbal and nonverbal cues available in real-life interactions.

There is simply no denying that the advent of person-to-person online communication has dramatically altered the landscape of seeking friends and building relationships. As this form of digital interaction continues to grow in popularity, it will have an even greater impact on the way people develop relationships in the years to come.

What does all this mean for you? To paraphrase Charles Dickens: “It can be the best of times; it can be the worst of times.” When employed correctly and with appropriate safeguards, establishing friendships in the digital world can be a rewarding and fruitful experience; however, plunging headlong into Internet relationships without proper attention to the potential risks involved is a surefire recipe for disaster. Before you fire up your laptop or reach for your smartphone, here are some important things to keep in mind.

CAUTION: IMMORTALITY AHEAD

Facebook. Twitter. Instagram. Chat rooms. Special interest groups. Email. Blogs. Internet search engines. Dating sites. A literal cornu­copia of opportunities to search for and meet people who could end up being friends or even lifelong partners.

But be afraid, or to paraphrase the famous Jaws trailer, be very afraid of the potential price you pay whenever you go on the Internet. Anything you say, anywhere you visit, any pictures you post, even your emails and instant messages can gain instant Internet immortality, leaving you with a cyberfootprint, which, unlike a footprint in the sand, is not easily washed away!

Increasingly, prospective employers, potential lovers, would-be stalkers, businesses, and even government agencies are using your cyber­activities to learn more about you and make decisions about how they will treat you, even if the information they use is decades old!

Please keep in mind that what you post is who you are . . . forever. Whenever you sit down at the computer and sign onto the Internet, always keep this sentence in mind: “Would I be embarrassed if what I am about to do would suddenly appear on the front page of my local newspaper tomorrow, in a month, or in ten years?” If the answer is “yes” or “maybe,” stop and think before you hit the send button or enter key . . . it just might save you heartache and disappointment tomorrow and down the road.

LEARN AND USE PROPER DIGITAL ETIQUETTE WHEN VISITING CYBERSPACE

Technology is evolving so quickly that social norms for using things like computers and smartphones don’t always keep pace. Nevertheless, there are some general guidelines that, if followed, should make online experiences safer and more enjoyable for you and those around you. It will also increase your chances for making friends, rather than enemies, both online and in the immediate vicinity where you are texting, talking, or searching.

Smartphones

In a Florida movie theater a man was shot to death for using his smartphone after the house lights were dimmed. Chances are you won’t experience a similar fate should you choose to text or talk in an inappropriate manner or place; however, there are simple guidelines you’ll want to follow to protect yourself and your information from harm.

1. All mobile communication devices should be silenced in any public or private location where a ringtone would be distracting and/or inappropriate.

2. All mobile communication device users should refrain from speaking on their phones in any public or private location where vocalizations would be distracting and/or inappropriate. (Example: I didn’t go out for a relaxing meal at a nice restaurant to hear your long-winded discourse about problems at home or work.)

3. Smartphones can be hacked. Pictures and other information you would not want to see reprinted in your local newspaper would best be removed from the device.

4. Most cell phone bills provide a detailed history of calls to and from your device. If you would prefer that others not know who you called and who called you, it might be wise to keep this in mind.

5. Recording yourself doing things which, for lack of a better word, might be deemed inappropriate by others is probably not a good idea. Case in point: A woman from the United Kingdom picked up her boyfriend’s smartphone and found images of him having sex with a dog. To make matters worse, it was her dog! How the woman reacted to this chain of events was not reported.

6. “Sexting”—particularly when pictures are included—is just not a good idea, even between husband and wife. These photos have a nasty way of suddenly appearing on social media websites, particularly if the husband and wife get divorced and one or both of them are vindictive.

7. Don’t Let V/R (Virtual Reality) trump R/W (Real World) relationships. Individuals vary in their tolerance of cell phone conversations (and constantly checking social media) undertaken by someone they are with. Even if your companion (date, friend, or business associate) is more tech-savvy and tolerant than most, it is still considered inappropriate for you to be taking calls, checking messages, and frequently glancing over at your cell during your time together. In an earlier chapter on verbal communication, I pointed out how important it was to listen in a focused manner to the person you are talking with. It shows interest and respect, fostering a superior environment for making people like you and keeping friends. If you insist on seeing your phone as an umbilical cord in the presence of others, don’t expect the birth of a good relationship.

8. Because cell phones retain their initial area code (regardless of where they are used) and, further, because transmission of cell phone conversations is not always clear, it is important when you leave your number for a callback that you start with the area code and repeat the entire number twice. That way, you increase your chances that the recipient of your message will have the information necessary to get back to you.

Electronic Messages (Email)

1. Emails fall somewhere between text messages and letters when it comes to how formal or informal your communication can be. Obviously, emails to prospective employers or important business contacts should be more reflective of a traditional letter, well thought out, and grammatically sound. That being said, it is advisable to keep all emails free of the type of abbreviations normally used in texting, and check for spelling mistakes before transmitting your messages.

2. Carefully consider your screen name when using email communications. A screen name that might be acceptable for communications between friends could be wildly inappropriate if used when contacting prospective employers or your kid’s school official. One of my colleagues who teaches human resource management in a business school showed me her “Inappropriate Screen Name Hall of Fame” list, which included names actually used by her students in applying for jobs. Number one on the list was “Lickmered.”

3. Don’t write email text in capital letters (LIKE THIS). It is considered to be the equivalent of shouting at someone in verbal interactions and is viewed as rude.

4. Never write an email when you are extremely angry or distraught. In an earlier chapter, I emphasized that people who are agitated in such a manner have difficulty thinking rationally. An email written during these times often reflects this damaged thought process. If you must write such a message, don’t send it; not immediately, anyway. Put it aside for several hours and then reread it when you have calmed down and you can think more rationally. Only then should you consider sending it . . . probably with significant revisions. Another good reason not to immediately send out an angry email is its potential to further escalate the situation. The problem might be resolved (or go away) within a few hours if “left alone.” A hasty, angry response effectively eliminates this possibility.

5. When you are ready to send an email be sure to check to whom it is being sent. Many embarrassing incidents could have been avoided if the email sender had made sure his or her message was being sent to a specific person and not “reply all.”

6. An email can be “forever” (or at least linger in cyberspace for months, even years). Once an email is “out there” it can take on a life of its own: reproduced, forwarded, archived. Each time you write an email you should ask yourself: “What if this email went public and stayed public for a significant period of time: would I still send it?”

7. Deleted emails can still be recovered for months after you have “erased” them. This is because many Internet servers “save” deleted emails on their computers. The recovery of supposedly “deleted” emails has revealed sensitive information about (or from) individuals they thought was safely destroyed. Oftentimes, these persons discovered this unsettling news in open court.

8. Never open an email attachment unless you are sure you know who sent it and that they, in fact, were the senders. (Email addresses are sometimes illegally accessed from a person’s computer and then used to send messages containing viruses to everyone on that person’s contact list. It appears that the message is legitimate because it is sent from the compromised person’s computer.) In general, it is best not to open any email attachments unless absolutely necessary. Protecting your computer with security programs that screen attachments (for example, Norton or McAfee) is advised; otherwise, opening attachments on your computer is akin to having unprotected sex.

Social Sites (Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc.)

1. Social sites vary in their filtering mechanisms: who can and cannot see your postings. Be sure you are familiar with these filters and use them appropriately.

2. Assume that anything you post on a social site can be accessed and reproduced for others to see. Further, keep in mind that those college parties where you were photographed drinking and having a “good old time” might someday be accessed by a prospective employer, potential (or actual) spouse, or even your parents and in-laws!

3. As a general rule, it is wise to limit your digital footprint online. Excessive use of social sites enlarges that footprint and might cause problems down the road.

4. Be careful who you friend!

DIGITAL DETECTIVES

As you know by now, I am a frequent flyer. This time, I approached the gate at the Nashville airport to see if I could fly standby on an earlier flight, but this story is not about me getting an upgrade. The gate clerks, a man and a woman, were intently examining a very expensive digital camera. I heard them comment to each other, “There’s no name on the camera or any other unique identifying information. We have to find out who this camera belongs to and give it back to them.” I asked them what they were doing.” In unison they said, “We’re the FBI agents of American Airlines.” I told them I was a real FBI agent, although I was retired. I asked them how they could find the owner of the camera without any clues. The man explained that they would turn the camera on and look for clues in the pictures the owner took. I was intrigued as I saw them go through the process of solving the digital puzzle. As they shuffled through the date-stamped pictures, they gathered digital clues. The owner was a male of Hispanic descent. It appeared that he had spent three days in Las Vegas, probably on business, because there were no family pictures. He stayed at the Bellagio Hotel. They continued to scroll through the pictures. The woman high-fived the man and shrieked, “I found it!” She showed me the picture on the camera that was taken the previous week. The photo depicted a newer, wood-frame house with blue siding. I saw the picture, but I didn’t see what triggered their excitement. She pointed to the house and said, “Those kinds of houses are typically built on the East Coast in mid-Atlantic states.” “Okay,” I thought, “so what?” She then directed me to the barely visible “For Sale” sign in the front yard. “Okay,” I said, not sure of the significance of the sign. She used the camera’s zoom feature to make the address and telephone number of the real estate agency clearly visible. The real estate office was in Columbia, South Carolina. I finally got it. I blurted out loud, “The owner of the camera was probably from Columbia, South Carolina, because people typically don’t take pictures of houses for sale unless they are considering a purchase.” The woman added, “An earlier flight we boarded was headed to Columbia, South Carolina.” She pulled up the passenger list and, fortunately, there were only a few Hispanic names listed. I had to board my flight, but I was confident that the FBI agents of American Airlines would locate the owner and return the camera. I was amazed by how easy it was to track the movements of the owner of the lost camera using a few abstract digital clues. I was even more amazed that they went the extra mile to return the lost camera. They said they returned many lost or forgotten electronic devices using similar methods. The point of the story is that in a digital world, it’s hard to remain anonymous. Keep this in mind the next time you post something on the Internet or do something as benign as taking a digital photograph.

CATPHISH OR CAVIAR: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW BEFORE DEVELOPING ONLINE RELATIONSHIPS

The Internet provides a fertile environment for growing friendships and even lifelong liaisons between individuals. This has led to the development of websites that facilitate the online “dating” process and make it easier for individuals interested in finding significant others to “hook up.” The people who own these websites claim great success in getting “soul mates” together: providing the mechanism through which people meet online and, eventually, establish long-term commitments in the real world.

Using the Internet to find “Mr.” or “Ms. Right” can be a rewarding experience. It can also be a living hell. How your experience turns out depends on many factors, most of which will be discussed here. Although no one can guarantee that your Internet-generated relationships will be successful and trouble-free, there are some things you can do to increase your chances of experiencing positive outcomes—and reducing negative ones—when it comes to choosing friends and potential partners online.

LOVE AT FIRST BYTE

The young man was a star Notre Dame football player who fell in love with a woman he met online. Then tragedy struck: his sweetheart died of leukemia. To make matters worse, she died on the same day the football player’s grandmother passed away.

The star player’s twin tragedies became a national news item. But that story was soon eclipsed by an even bigger story: it turned out that the woman he loved didn’t die after all, because she never lived in the first place! It turned out she was a person created in cyberspace by someone with a very sick sense of humor.

And then there’s the saga of Sana and Adnan Klaric. It seems the couple’s married life was not going well and so, unbeknownst to each other, each Klaric assumed a fake screen name, Sweetie and Prince of Joy respectively, and hit the online chat rooms complaining about their dismal marriage and searching for a new “Mr.” and “Mrs.” Right.

It took some time and a lot of keystrokes but at last the two estranged partners found online individuals who seemed to resonate with their problems and provide the kind words so missing in their marriage.

Sana and Adnan knew they had found the real loves of their lives. They agreed to meet their new partners at a prearranged time and place. On the big day, Sana and Adnan made excuses to each other about having to leave for appointments, each making sure their indiscretion would not be detected. Then they set off to meet their online paramours, the perfect replacements for what they had back home.

When they arrived at their rendezvous point, Sana and Adnan met their online lovers for the first time. It was not love at first sight. It turned out that Sana and Adnan had unknowingly been carrying on their online affair with each other!

One might best leave it to ethicists and lawyers to decide if Sana and Adnan were being unfaithful, as it is difficult to imagine committing adultery with your own spouse; however, “Sweetie” and “Prince of Joy” were not pleased and, at last report, were accusing each other of being unfaithful and filing for divorce.

What do all these stories demonstrate?

1. Relationships developed over the Internet can be as powerful as those developed in face-to-face interactions, sometimes more so.

2. On the Internet, things are not always as they appear.

3. If a world-class physicist can be duped over the Internet, you probably can be, too.

4. There are creepy, mean, sick people populating the Internet just as they do in the real world.

5. Scams involving relationships on the Internet are more common than most of us imagine. They have become so widespread, in fact, that a documentary film, MTV reality series, and feature film have been based on the problem. A word has even been coined, catfish, which, as Internet attorney Parry Aftab says, refers to “anybody who pretends to be someone who they’re not on social media. It’s done all the time.” I’ve taken that expression one step further with “catphish” to also include the hackers who wish to steal your identity.

6. Because of the “cloak of secrecy” provided by the Internet, people will say things in cyberspace they would never say in a personal interaction.

7. On the Internet, as in real life, if it’s too good to be true, it probably is! Social networks can be hazardous. No communication posted to the Internet can be guaranteed to remain private. You must assume that your posts are permanent and public.

8. As in face-to-face communications, pretending to be someone you are not often leads to unpleasant outcomes.

9. There are things you can do to navigate the Internet more safely and effectively. Some suggestions are provided in the following pages. These suggestions are not only relevant for individuals seeking love on the Internet; they will be helpful for anyone looking for friends in cyberspace.

TESTING FOR VERACITY ONLINE AND OFFLINE

Letting our teenagers roam freely on the Internet, especially my daughter, was a scary proposition for my wife and me. So I taught them some techniques I used on suspects to determine their veracity. I did this to help protect them from both online and real-world predators. I offer these techniques to you for the same reason, to help you guard against deceptive on- and offline communications. The results of these seeming innocuous veracity tests are not absolute proof of deception but they do provide you with strong indicators that someone might be lying or, at least, stretching the truth beyond acceptable limits.

THE WELL . . . TECHNIQUE

When you ask someone a direct yes-or-no question and they begin their answer with the “Well,” there is a high probability of deception. It indicates that the person answering the question is about to give you an answer that they know you are not expecting. The following exchanges will clarify the “Well” technique.

DAD: Did you finish your homework?

DAUGHTER: Well . . .

DAD: Go to your room and finish your homework.

DAUGHTER: How did you know I didn’t do my homework?

DAD: I’m a dad. I know these things.

The dad didn’t need to wait for his daughter to finish her answer because he knew by her use of “Well” in response to his direct question that she was about to give him an answer she knew he was not expecting. The daughter knew her dad was expecting a yes answer to the question “Did you do your homework?”

In another example, I interviewed a person who I thought witnessed a murder. The person was in proximity to the crime scene, but he denied seeing the shooting. After giving me some evasive answers, I decided to test his veracity by asking him a direct yes-or-no question.

ME: Did you see what happened?

WITNESS: Well . . . from where I was it was hard to see much of anything. It was dark and it all happened so fast.

I asked the witness a direct question to which he knew I expected a yes answer. Since he began his response with “Well,” I knew he was about to give me an answer other than yes. I let the witness finish his response so as not to alert him to the technique.

The “Well” technique only works with direct yes-or-no questions. Beginning a response with “Well” in answer to an open-ended question such as “Who will win the Super Bowl next year?” indicates the person is evaluating how to answer the question. You should allow others to finish their answers before responding so as not to alert them to this technique. Be advised that if the person you are talking to is aware of this technique, he or she will deliberately avoid using “Well.”

Get into the habit of asking people a direct yes-or-no question and listening for their response. Answering such a question with “Well” or not directly answering the question is a strong indicator of deception, requiring additional probing.

THE LAND OF IS

When people choose not to answer yes or no, they go to the Land of Is. The Land of Is occupies the space between truth and deception. This murky area contains a labyrinth of half-truths, excuses, and suppositions. President Clinton’s now famous statement to the grand jury inspired the concept of the Land of Is. To paraphrase what Clinton stated, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word is is. If is means is, and never has been, that’s one thing, if it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.” Clinton cleverly took the prosecutor to the Land of Is to avoid directly answering the prosecutor’s direct yes-or-no question.

The following exchange between a mother and daughter demonstrates the Land of Is technique.

MOM: Your teacher called this afternoon and told me that she suspected you of cheating on an exam. Did you cheat on your exam?

DAUGHTER: I spend two hours a night studying. I study more than anybody I know. People who don’t study are the people who have to cheat on exams. I study all the time. Don’t accuse me of cheating!

MOM: I’m not accusing you of cheating.

DAUGHTER: Yes, you are!

The mom asked her daughter a direct yes-or-no question. Her daughter chose not to respond with a simple yes-or-no answer but, instead, took her mother to the Land of Is to avoid directly answering it. The daughter ended her response with an accusation, which put Mom on the defensive. The topic was no longer about cheating but about Mom making unwarranted accusations.

Mom could have prevented her daughter from going to the Land of Is by first recognizing that the technique was being used and then redirecting the conversation back to the initial topic of inquiry. For example:

MOM: Your teacher called this afternoon and told me that she suspected you of cheating on an exam. Did you cheat on your exam?

DAUGHTER: I spend two hours a night studying. I study more than anybody I know. People who don’t study are the people who have to cheat on exams. I study all the time. Don’t accuse me of cheating!

MOM: I know you study hard and get good grades. That’s not what I asked you. I asked you whether or not you cheated on your exam. Did you cheat on your exam?

Redirecting the conversation back to the initial question forced her daughter to answer the question, “Did you cheat on your exam?” Her daughter must answer yes or no or take her mother back to the Land of Is. Failure to answer a yes-or-no question with a yes-or-no answer is not conclusive proof of deception, but the probability of deception does increase significantly. If her daughter did not cheat on her exam, answering no would not be difficult. The truth is simple. The truth is direct. The truth is not complicated.

WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE YOU?

When someone provides you with an answer to a question, simply ask them “Why should I believe you?” Honest people typically answer, “Because I am telling the truth” or some derivation thereof. Truthful people simply convey information. They focus on accurately presenting facts. Conversely, liars try to convince people that what is being said is true. Their focus is not on accurately presenting facts, but rather, on convincing listeners that the facts presented represent the truth. Since liars cannot rely on facts to establish their credibility, they tend to bolster their credibility to make their version of the facts appear believable.

When people answer with other than “Because I’m telling the truth” or some derivation thereof, tell them that their response did not answer the question and repeat the question, “Why should I believe you?” If they again do not respond with “Because I’m telling the truth” or some derivation thereof, the probability of deception increases. The following exchange between a dad and his son demonstrates the Why Should I Believe You technique.

DAD: There was ten dollars on my dresser this morning. It’s no longer there. Did you take money from my dresser for any reason?

SON: No.

DAD: Son, I want to believe you. But I’m having a hard time. Tell me. Why should I believe you?

SON: I’m not a thief.

DAD: I didn’t ask you if you were a thief or not. I asked you why I should believe you. Why should I believe you?

SON: Because I didn’t steal the money. I’m telling you the truth.

DAD: I know you are and I believe you.

In this exchange, the son responded that he was not a thief. This response did not answer the question “Why should I believe you?” Dad gave his son a second chance by telling him that the question was not whether he was a thief but rather “Why should I believe you?” This time the son answered, “Because I didn’t steal the money. I’m telling you the truth,” which indicates the son was probably telling the truth. The fact that the son correctly answered the question “Why should I believe you” does not mean he told the truth, but it does decrease the likelihood of deception.

When you communicate with people, especially on the Internet by instant messaging or by texting on a smartphone, use these simple, noninvasive techniques to test the person’s veracity. These techniques are so subtle that the people you are communicating with will not even recognize that they are being tested for veracity. Although these techniques are only indicators of deception, not proof of deception, they do provide you with a strong line of defense against online predators.

DETECTING DECEPTION IN ONLINE PROFILES

Most people do not accurately describe themselves in online profiles, especially dating profiles. Researchers Toma, Hancock, and Ellison surveyed eighty people who submitted online profiles to various dating websites. An astounding 81 percent of the online daters lied about one or more of their physical attributes, which included height, weight, and age. Women tended to lie about their weight and men tended to lie about their height. Women whose weight scored further from the mean lied more about their degree of obesity. Likewise, men whose height scored further from the mean lied more about how tall they were. The survey respondents reported that they were more likely to lie about their photographs than in relationship information such as marital status and the number of children they have.

In a follow-up study by Hancock and Toma, they found that about one-third of the online photographs examined were not accurate. Women’s photographs were judged as less accurate than men’s photographs. Women were more likely to be older than they were portrayed in their photographs. Their photographs were more likely to be Photoshopped or taken by professional photographers. Additionally, less attractive people were more likely to enhance their profile. The most interesting finding was that although people frequently lied in their online profiles, they attempted to keep their alterations within believable parameters in the event they met their correspondents in subsequent face-to-face meetings.

The magnitude of deception in online profiles should not come as a big surprise. An online profile is the equivalent of a first date. Anyone who has been on a first date will remember putting his or her best foot forward. (Just as in a first job interview, we wear our “interview” suit.) Women dressed with great contemplation and took extra minutes to put on their makeup. Men ensured their clothes were color-­coordinated and wrinkle-free. Conversations were rehearsed before any words were exchanged. Personality flaws and behavioral quirks were carefully camouflaged with polite talk and impeccable manners. The extra steps were taken to make the right first impression.

Putting your best foot forward when meeting someone is not construed as deception because the foot put forward still is recognizably yours, albeit an enhanced version. People who present themselves on the Internet should try to put a positive face on their profile, but remain within the bounds of truth when including a photograph and a description of who they are. Likewise, people who use the Internet to search for potential relationships should learn to take online profiles with a grain of salt, recognizing that the person they are scrutinizing is never going to appear more attractive or qualified than the picture and résumé they post.

Men and women feel the need to meet standards of beauty that society establishes, and which are reinforced by the media. People lie to bring themselves closer to the standard image in the hope of attracting a friend or a mate. People who believe they do not meet those standards feel less attractive and are less confident that they can attract and keep a partner without lying about who they really are and how they really look. This pattern will not change in the foreseeable future; to the contrary, it will most likely intensify as online dating and Internet chat rooms become more popular and proliferate.

Anyone who seeks relationships on the Internet should be aware of the line that separates a “best impression” profile from a deceptive one. A deceptive online profile may attract a suitor or friend, but once the deception is discovered, trust, disappointment, and betrayal becomes the centerpiece of the relationship instead of excitement, hopes, and dreams. If you want to try Internet relationship building, be honest in your online profile and be patient. The right relationship is worth the wait.

HOW TO REDUCE YOUR CHANCES OF BEING HOOKED BY A CATPHISH

The flit of an eye, the turn of the head, or a slight change in voice pitch provides clues to a person’s personality, sincerity, and veracity. As cited earlier in the book, our brains constantly monitor verbal and non­verbal cues to assess others to see if they pose a potential threat. If the cues are friend signals, then the brain tends to ignore the behaviors. If the cues are foe signals, the brain initiates the fight or flight response and we go shields up to protect ourselves against the threat or potential threat.

Nonverbal and verbal cues can undergo dramatic changes from second to second and from one word to the next. Monitoring these changes can mean the difference between relationship happiness and relationship hell. People are comfortable using verbal and nonverbal cues to assess others and rely heavily on this method to protect themselves against initiating or continuing bad relationships.

Internet relationships lack the cues necessary for people to make similar judgments. Emoticons help decode written communications, but they are not enough. Decoding an unseen person’s personality, sincerity, and veracity requires additional skills when communicating on the Internet. People are poor judges of their Internet partners because the cues they rely on in face-to-face exchanges are missing. The most reliable method people have to assess others is no longer available to them. They must rely on unpracticed techniques that have not yet been tested for reliability. The brain has not built up enough data to discriminate between friend and foe signals embedded in Internet communications. Building Internet detection skills takes time. Here are some of the potential problems you might encounter in determining the veracity and value of a potential online relationship.

TRUTH BIAS

People tend to believe others. This phenomenon, referred to as the truth bias, allows society and commerce to run smoothly and efficiently. Absent the truth bias, people would spend an inordinate amount of time checking data collected from others. The truth bias also serves as a social default. Relationships with friends and business colleagues would become strained if their veracity were constantly questioned. Consequently, people typically believe others until evidence to the contrary surfaces.

The truth bias provides liars with an advantage because people want to believe what they hear, see, or read. The truth bias diminishes when people become aware of the possibility of deception. The truth bias predisposes people to believe what others write in emails and texts. Absent verbal and nonverbal cues, the veracity of written communications is not as easily called into question.

Another characteristic of the truth bias is that when people do see a few loose ends or minor contradictions in a person’s story, they tend to excuse the discrepancy because to do otherwise would call the person’s words or behaviors into question. It’s easier to excuse away minor differences than to confront the person. The best defense against the truth bias online is judicious skepticism and use of the “competing hypotheses” technique (see the following page).

THE PRIMACY EFFECT

Truth bias creates the primacy effect. The primacy effect, as you will recall from Chapter 3, creates a filter through which we view communication and events. The primacy effect does not change reality but alters people’s perception of it. Truth bias creates a primacy filter. Anything a person writes tends to be evaluated as truthful unless there is something to cause you to doubt what is written. Absent verbal and nonverbal cues, individuals are at a disadvantage when judging written correspondence on the Internet.

COMPETING HYPOTHESES

Developing competing hypotheses prevents the truth bias and the primacy effect from unduly undermining your ability to judge the character and veracity of the person who is writing to you. Hypotheses are nothing more than educated guesses. A competing hypothesis is an educated guess that supposes a different outcome based on the same or similar set of circumstances.

For example, say one hypothesis posits that the person who is writing to you is genuine and telling the truth. A competing hypothesis posits that the person who is writing to you is an imposter and a liar. During the course of your written exchanges with another person on the Internet (for example, in an instant message session) you should seek evidence to support your initial hypothesis (the writer is genuine and truthful) or your competing hypothesis (the writer is an imposter and a liar).

Rarely does all the evidence support the initial hypothesis or the competing hypothesis, because honest people often say and do things that make them look dishonest and, conversely, dishonest people often say and do things that make them look honest. In the end, however, the weight of the evidence should support one hypothesis over the other. Countering the effects of truth bias and the primacy effect reduces your vulnerability to being deceived on the Internet . . . ­catphished, so to say.

LAWS OF ATTRACTION

As discussed in Chapter 4, attractive people receive preferential treatment and garner more attention than do unattractive (or less attractive) individuals. The effect of physical beauty is reduced in Internet communications, unless a picture accompanies an Internet profile. Keep in mind that people often lie in their Internet profiles to enhance their ability to attract partners. Since people do not have face-to-face interaction with the person writing to them, they have no point of reference against which to judge their written communication.

Contrast plays an important role in attraction. When two people stand side by side, people tend to contrast one against the other. In the absence of a second person for comparison purposes, an individual will tend to compare the single person against their “idealized” person. Since the person writing to you on the Internet is singular, you will have a tendency to compare that person against your idealized person. Over time, people tend to attribute the characteristic of their idealized person to the person writing them. This misattribution leads to the increased probability of being the victim of a catphish.

RAPPORT BUILDING

Building rapport on the Internet relies solely on written text, assuming no use of Skype or other photographic transmission. This limits the techniques people normally have available to establish rapport in face-to-face communications. As mentioned earlier in the book, finding common ground is a powerful technique to establish rapport. In order to find common ground on the Internet, you must disclose personal information to the person to whom you are writing. Disclosing this kind of information is another powerful technique to develop rapport. Since Internet communications are anonymous, people tend to disclose more information, and do it more quickly, than they would face-to-face. One reason for this is that the sender does not have verbal and nonverbal cues to gain feedback about the acceptance or rejection of his or her information by the receiver of the written information.

When people receive rejection cues in face-to-face communications, they tend to stop disclosing. This is not the case online. In fact, people tend to increase the disclosure of sensitive personal information. The result of an increase in self-disclosure propels the relationship to a higher level than if the relationship were a face-to-face encounter. As a result, a vital step in the relationship developing process is skipped. During this vital step in face-to-face communication, prospective partners have the opportunity to slowly disclose information using verbal and nonverbal cues to pace the development of the relationship and the rate of information release. If things go awry during this initial step, the two people can go their separate ways without having disclosed too much sensitive information to create personal vulnerabilities. Because of the absence of this vital step in written Internet communication, where no face-to-face interaction occurs, the chances for catphishing increase.

Recruiting people to spy for the United States follows a similar relationship pathway. Spies need to be groomed. The steps required to develop close friendships or romantic relationships are the same ones required to convince a person to become a spy. In several cases, I tried to rush the relationship due to operational demands. These recruitments always failed because I skipped the initial step in relationship development. The first step is critical. Revealing too much information too soon will dampen the relationship. The recruitment target will disengage. As mentioned earlier, a partner is seen as too “fast” or too “slow” if the expectation milestones for relationship development are hurried or lagging. Internet relationships often violate relationship expectations because partners are propelled to a higher level of relationship intensity before they are psychologically prepared to do so. This creates vulnerabilities for both partners to the interaction.

EMOTIONAL INVESTMENT

The longer the Internet relationship continues, the more likely people are to remain in the relationship because of their deep emotional investment. This doesn’t mean they are actually a good couple, but because they’ve spent too much time in the interaction, they don’t feel they can just quit, and besides, the relationship has developed to a point where the volume of sensitive information released creates personal vulnerabilities so significant that giving up is not an option.

AN EXAMPLE OF HOW EMOTIONAL INVESTMENT WORKS IN THE REAL WORLD

To illustrate how emotional investment affects a person’s behavior, let me illustrate how you can use it to your advantage in certain situations, particularly when buying big-ticket items. Let’s assume you want to purchase a new car. In this case, you would first find the vehicle you want and then tell the salesperson that you will buy it today if you can get it for the right price. Then take out your checkbook and write the date and name of the dealership on a check. Explain to the salesperson all that’s required to wrap up the deal is the amount of the down payment and your signature. This partially completed check sends a message to the salesperson that you are serious about buying a car. State the price you want to pay and be ready to wait the salesperson out.

In one instance that I tried this, I negotiated eight hours for a vehicle! At the end of the salesperson’s shift, she relented. She reasoned that she spent eight hours negotiating with me and to not sell me the car would be a waste of her time, time she could have spent selling cars to other people. The emotional investment she put into the negotiations psychologically pressured her into taking my ridiculously low offer; otherwise she would have had to face the prospect of failure.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

Cognitive dissonance occurs when people hold two or more conflicting ideas or beliefs simultaneously. People continue in Internet relationships when they know the relationship should stop to avoid cognitive dissonance. They do not want to believe that the person they are communicating with is not who they say they are, because that creates cognitive dissonance.

Take yourself as an example. You view yourself as a knowledgeable, discerning person. You also love the person you have met and are communicating with online. If you admit that you are the victim of catphishing, then you are naïve and gullible; therefore, you refuse to believe that the person you are writing to is a fraud, to avoid the bad feeling that comes with cognitive dissonance.

Manti Te’o, the Notre Dame football player who fell victim to an online predator, expressed the conflict caused by cognitive dissonance in this comment about his catphishing experience: “This is incredibly embarrassing to talk about, but over an extended period of time, I developed an emotional relationship with a woman I met online. We maintained what I thought to be an authentic relationship by communicating frequently online and on the phone, and I grew to care deeply about her. To realize that I was the victim of what was apparently someone’s sick joke and constant lies was, and is, painful and ­humiliating. . . . In retrospect, I obviously should have been much more cautious. If anything good comes of this, I hope it is that others will be far more guarded when they engage with people online than I was.”

EXPOSING CATPHISH

To prevent yourself from being hooked by a catphish, force him or her into the visual world, where you can use your well-honed knowledge of nonverbal signals to verify if the person matches up with their online persona and if the relationship looks as good “in the light of day” as it did on a computer screen. During the early stages of an Internet relationship, you must realize that the lack of nonverbal cues puts you at a disadvantage. Establish competing hypotheses to prevent the relationship from developing too fast.

Always assume that you are the victim of a catphish until visual evidence proves otherwise. Insist on a face-to-face meeting as soon as possible. This meeting should take place in a well-populated, public area to reduce the possibility of personal danger. Also, to make the meeting more comfortable for both Internet users, a casual, relatively short first face-to-face meeting is recommended; a coffee shop rendezvous or lunch date might be best.

In the event a face-to-face meeting is not practical, insist on a visual meeting on Skype or similar service. An Internet partner who makes excuses to avoid a face-to-face meeting, or constantly makes excuses as to why a visual meeting on the Internet is not possible, is sending a strong signal that something is amiss. At this point, you should immediately break off your Internet relationship. To do otherwise puts you in peril, possibly significant peril.

Demanding a visual meeting early in the relationship is a simple yet effective technique to avoid being hooked by a catphish. Visual meetings allow you to evaluate nonverbal cues to assess the veracity of your Internet partner. Visual contact also prevents the development of idealized characteristics to an unknown person. Developing competing hypotheses reduces the effect of truth bias. The need to reveal sensitive, personal information is reduced in face-to-face encounters, thus preventing the relationships from developing too quickly. Slowing the development of the relationship reduces your emotional investment, thus minimizing the emotional cost of breaking off the relationship.

In genuine relationships, people are eager to communicate visually, especially early in a relationship. People feel more comfortable in visual relationships because they can use the social skills they have come to rely on to evaluate others more accurately. Visual meetings expose catphish and level the Internet relationship playing field.

A NEW GENERATION: TURN ON, TUNE IN, AND TAKE PRECAUTIONS

There is simply no denying that the advent of person-to-person online communication has dramatically altered the landscape of seeking friends and building relationships. As online interaction continues to grow in popularity it will have an even greater impact on the way people form relationships in the years to come.

By being aware of the Internet dangers mentioned above, and using the techniques I recommend to minimize them, meaningful Internet relationships are possible. In fact, for reasons listed at the beginning of this chapter, they might be the preferred method for connecting with people in the initial stage of relationship building.

Used with appropriate caution and common sense, the Internet is another tool in your friendship toolbox for finding and developing friendships for a moment or a lifetime. Conversely, if you use the tool carelessly, with a disregard for what is inputted and downloaded, it can lead to disappointment and potential personal disasters. In the final analysis, how you use the digital universe will determine its ultimate value, good or bad, in shaping the quality of your life and your relationships.