4.3.2 - Online relationships

Self-Disclosure Online

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) uses digital technology to initiate or maintain relationships. It includes text messages, forums, dating platforms and video calls; these media differ in anonymity, visible cues and opportunities to edit. Relationships can be hybrid, moving between messaging, calls and face-to-face meetings.

Self-disclosure means voluntarily revealing personal information, thoughts and feelings. It is central to relationship development because people usually become closer as they share more personal information. In online relationships, the pattern can differ because senders may control what is revealed, when and how. Saying “I like this game” is self-disclosure even though it is not intimate; sharing a private fear increases depth. Disclosure need not be secret or distressing to count.

Walther's hyperpersonal model explains why online self-disclosure can sometimes become unusually intense. Walther (1996) argued that CMC can sometimes become hyperpersonal, meaning more intimate or socially desirable than equivalent face-to-face communication.

The model connects a sender, receiver, communication channel and feedback between them. It predicts that some online exchanges can intensify impressions and intimacy; it does not claim every online interaction is hyperpersonal:

Suler's (2004) online disinhibition effect also helps explain self-disclosure. He argued that online features such as anonymity, invisibility and asynchronicity can reduce restraint. This can be benign, such as sharing worries in an online support group, or toxic, such as hostile comments. Reduced inhibition can make personal disclosure easier, but can also encourage oversharing or hostility. Neither outcome guarantees trust or a lasting relationship.

AO2 example. Aisha feels embarrassed discussing family conflict at school, where people know her friendship group. In an anonymous online support forum, she writes a detailed post about her feelings and receives supportive replies. This is online self-disclosure: the relative anonymity and lack of immediate face-to-face judgement make deeper disclosure easier.

Do not overstate the claim. Online communication does not always produce more disclosure. Self-disclosure depends on the platform, the relationship, whether video or text is used, the person's goals, cultural norms and whether the relationship is expected to move offline.

Use Of Deception

Deception is intentionally creating a false or misleading impression. In online relationships it can involve identity, personal details, intentions or reasons for being unavailable. It overlaps with self-disclosure when information revealed is false, but genuine disclosure and careful self-presentation need not be deceptive.

Not all online self-presentation is deception. A student choosing a flattering profile photo, rewriting a message before sending it or mentioning hobbies that show them in a good light is using selective self-presentation. It becomes deception when the person knowingly creates a false impression.

Online deception can involve:

• Physical attributes: height, weight, age, appearance or old/edited photos.
• Social identity: occupation, education, income, relationship status or lifestyle.
• Personality and motives: pretending to want a serious relationship, emotional closeness or shared values.
• Identity itself: using someone else's images, a fake name or a fully invented persona.
• Modern tools: filters, staged profiles, AI-edited images or AI-assisted messages. These are examples of tools; whether a use is deceptive depends on the false impression intended, rather than the mere use of editing or AI.

Different purposes of deception. A self-enhancement lie, such as falsely claiming a sporting achievement, tries to make someone more desirable. A butler lie instead manages contact or boundaries: someone falsely says “my battery died” to explain not replying without saying that they wanted time alone. Catfishing constructs a false identity and may seek emotional acceptance, control, entertainment or financial gain. These motives differ; a small excuse and an invented identity should not be treated as the same behaviour or harm.

The hyperpersonal model also helps explain deception: senders can edit an idealised version of themselves, receivers fill missing cues with favourable assumptions, and positive replies encourage the sender to maintain that image. A desire for acceptance can therefore encourage distortion even without financial motives. This is a possible mechanism, not proof that every edited message is a lie.

Why deception is easier online. Online profiles and messages are editable. Many cues that would normally reveal inconsistency, such as body language, voice, age cues or physical appearance, may be absent at the start. Asynchronous communication also gives time to construct a convincing impression.

Why deception is not unlimited. Future face-to-face meetings, video calls, linked social accounts, mutual contacts, screenshots and profile records can all make deception detectable. The recordability effect is a proposed constraint: a saved message can be checked later, so keeping an invented story consistent becomes harder. The constraint is weaker when messages disappear or verification is unlikely. Online contexts create opportunities for deception but also leave traces; expected future interaction can favour small, plausible inaccuracies.

Named evidence: Toma, Hancock and Ellison (2008). This study examined deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Eighty online daters rated the accuracy of their profiles, and researchers compared profile information about height, weight and age with measured or verified information. Inaccuracies were common but usually small. Men tended to overstate height more, women tended to understate weight more, and age was generally more accurate. Participants reported being least accurate about photographs and most accurate about relationship information. Their self-ratings corresponded with measured accuracy, giving some support for intentional rather than wholly unrecognised inaccuracies. This supports the idea that online dating encourages strategic, selective deception, but also shows that many deceptions are constrained rather than extreme.

Evaluating the evidence. Comparing measured height and weight with profile claims gives an external accuracy check, reducing reliance on whether participants admit deception. It does not reveal a person's motive on its own, and a discrepancy could reflect an old profile rather than a deliberate lie. Ask about when the profile was updated and the person's intentions before interpreting every mismatch as deception. Findings from a small heterosexual dating sample cannot establish the prevalence of catfishing across all platforms.