On Line Dating
Red Flags for Domestic Violence Survivors
Copyright 2008, Mark Zelig, Ph.D., ABPP
The following hand out was distributed during a workshop given by Dr. Zelig titled
“Online dating: Red Flags for Domestic Violence Survivors,” presented September 18, 2008, at the Fifth Annual Utah Domestic Violence Council Conference.
I. Facts about the online dating industry and population demographics:
1. Top 10 online services as of July 28, 2008:
Site/ total visits (in millions)
PlentyofFish 36,825
Singlesnet 29,896
eHarmony 19,269
Match.com 18,329
Yahoo!Personals 16,365
People Media Sites 12,340
TRUE.com 10,716
SparkNetworks 9,124
Mate1.com 4,847
Note: Only True.com performs some degree of background checking on its members.
2. Demographics: How many adults are single, and how many of them use online services for dating?
Census figures report that 44% of adults are single, and for every 86 unmarried men, there are 100 single women. From a percentage standpoint, the best hunting ground is in Washington DC, where 70% of the adults are single. The worst place to hunt – where only 41% of the adults are single – is Utah.
Approximately 40% of all single adults use online services.
II. Common safety rules when meeting an on-line friend in person:
1. When first meeting, you should always do so in a public place, each driving to and from separately. Continuing doing so until you and your date feel comfortable exchanging addresses, and getting in the other’s car.
2. W hen one begins meeting a person in private places, or driving in their car, make sure you advise another person where you are at, and make sure the date knows that you are doing so.
W hen one begins meeting a person in private places, or driving in their car, make sure they advise another person where they are at, and make sure their date knows that they are doing so.
Or...
Before meeting your date in a private place, or driving in their car, tell someone where you will be going on the date, and let your date known that you have told someone else.
3. Activate the GPS option on your cell phone. In case of your disappearance, it may help concerned others find you.
4. Consider using a disposable cellular phone for online dating, so if someone keeps bothering you, you can discard the phone.
5. Ask yourself: Does your date look like their picture? If the picture is a gross misrepresentation, you have received your first red flag that this person is dishonest, and in many cases, you should stop meeting with this person.
III. The truth about deception.
1. Most people believe they can usually detect deception. W hen the ability to detect deception is tested in psychological laboratories, subjects typically perform at chance level. Don’t go by your “gut,” alone.
2. A sensitivity for non-verbal cues better equips a person to detect deception.
3. The victim’s willingness to be deceived is fundamental for another person to be successfully deceptive. Accordingly, those who are willing to be deceived are usually very needy; such neediness can be attractive to deceptive people while unattractive to emotionally healthy people.
4. Is there a difference between people who want to meet their online friends after just a few emails or phone calls versus those who prefer a long period of emailing? Research indicates that those who desire in-person meetings, fairly soon after conversing on line, tend to be more honest than those who do not want to meet in person (Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006).
5. Recent research found that over 80% of online people lied on their profiles. Examining the practices of 80 online daters, researchers found that the deception was relatively minor – and predictable: The average deception for height was 2%, 5.5% for weight, and 1.4% for the participants age (Toma, Handcock, & Ellison, 2008). Not surprisingly, men had a greater tendency to be deceptive about their height (they were shorter than their profile claimed), and women had a greater tendency to be deceptive about their weight (they were heavier than indicated in their profiles).
IV. Methods to increase responses to your profile without compromising safety.
1. An important guiding principal for increasing response to your profile is to remember that social psychologists have repeatedly found that our perception of similarity or common interests is a very important factor influencing who we choose for friends and romantic partners.
2. The longer the profile, the likelier a potential suitor will detect a dissimilarity. This
triggers greater scrutiny for differences, causing a resulting cascade of disaffection for the profile. Take home message: If a person want to increase attention to their profile, shorten it! Similarly, to decrease hits to a manageable level increase details.
3. Women should avoid posting pictures of their children on their profile. This helps insure that her suitor is sexually attracted to the woman featured in the profile, rather than her children.
4. Your profile should be positive. Don’t list all the things you find objectionable. When someone warns the reader about all the things they don’t want they appear negative, and will likely discourage the very person whom they want to attract. Moreover, the person who lists all the negatives is also giving out valuable cues on how they can be manipulated and deceived upon an initial meetings.
V. Identifying problematic people from their profiles.
1. No picture
2. Excessive discussion about what they don’t want. E.g., “If you lie, or are an alcoholic, please look elsewhere.”
3. Beware if a person claims they do not drink. If there is not an obvious religious or moral reason for abstinence, the person may struggle with current, or have a history of past alcohol abuse.
References
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self disclosure,and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 33,1-26.
Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1023-1036.
