







































Education, Language and Sociology Research 
ISSN 2690-3644 (Print) ISSN 2690-3652 (Online) 

Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr 

Original Paper 

Understanding Deception Tactics with the Utilization of Dating 

Applications 
Nicole Claire Arca1, Abby Halston1*, Hans Chun1 & Joseph Allen1 

1 School of Education and Behavioral Sciences, Chaminade University, Honolulu, United States 
* Abby Halston, School of Education and Behavioral Sciences, Chaminade University, Honolulu, 

United States 

 

Received: February 15, 2021   Accepted: March 2, 2021   Online Published: March 17, 2021 

doi:10.22158/elsr.v2n2p33      URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elsr.v2n2p33 

 
Abstract 

This study investigated the relationship between the utilization of deceptive tactics and dating 

applications. The Machiavellian IV Scale, Taxonomy of Deceptive Mating Acts, and Tactics Scale were 

analyzed and used to gather information from participants’ experiences from online dating. An 

Independent T-test sample test evaluated the statistical differences between gender and the likely use of 

deception. One-Way ANOVA determined statistical differences between age groups and their 

relationship to the use of deception. Pearson correlation assessed the correlation between the numbers 

of dating applications owned by a single individual to their use of deception. The findings of this study 

encompass the guiding theories of Hyperpersonal Communication Theory and Evolutionary Theory. 

The null hypothesis stating that there is no relationship between gender and age to the likelihood use of 

deception, and the level of Machiavellianism was supported. The experimental hypothesis stating that 

there is a positive correlation in owning multiple dating applications to increased use of deceptive 

tactics was supported.  

Keywords 

online dating and deception, dating apps, online dating platforms 

 

1. Introduction 

Everyone has a chance to find someone through online dating platforms. However, a successful 

relationship depends on one’s person’s preferences and the techniques they utilize. Online platforms 

offer a greater probability of obtaining a significant other. The two most popular dating applications in 

the United States are Tinder, with 7.86 million users, and Bumble, with 5.03 million users. Other listed 

33 
 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

applications are POF, Match.com, OkCupid, Grindr, Hinge, Zoosk, MeetMe, and Ashley Madison 

(Clement, 2020). 

About 57% of online users share positive experiences. The majority of these users find potential 

partners through one’s physical attractiveness, shared common interests, and the willingness to meet in 

person. In addition, technological advances and online platforms have enhanced people’s inclusivity 

within diverse cultures. Approximately 3/10 of the online users share negative interactions, 37% of 

these users received messages from people they were not interested in, 35% of these users received 

unwanted explicit images and 28% had been called an offensive name. The negative perception of 

online dating stems from these negative interactions, the stigma of desperation, and deceptive 

techniques. Once an individual becomes more aware of the different deceptive tactics and learns the 

precautions against it, individuals can have a higher success rate in finding a significant partner (Vogels, 

2020). 

Toma and Hancock (2012) explored the Linguistic Deception in a dating profile. A person is able to 

maneuver one’s self-representation by adjusting their close-ended factual statements (e.g., height, age, 

occupation, religion) and their open-ended factual statements (e.g., short biography). Tooke and Camire 

(1991) discussed three deceptions: physical, financial, and commitment. Physical deceptions are 

alterations of one’s real appearance. Financial deceptions are statements or actions used to exaggerate 

the number of resources an individual owns: income, housing, cars, job, and more. Commitment 

deception is when one appears more committed than one actually is. Recognizing these deceptive 

tactics lead to an individual possessing a better sense of judgment when interacting with others. 

Therefore, individuals can have a higher success rate that stems from their understanding of these four 

types of deceptions. Over time, comparing dating tactics reveals similarities and differences between 

them. These represent the modern-day tactics of utilizing objects as compared to the past, where 

physicality was more prominently used.  

A popular deceptive tactic of the modern online dating era is known as dog fishing. A male would pose 

in a picture with a dog that is not their own to lure a false sense of security, carefree, and 

trustworthiness to their potential partners (Booth, 2019). Dunlop (2018), further explores the different 

other deceptive tactics used in online dating. Some tactics shown were alteration of appearance through 

editing applications, use of makeup, body, and angling of the phone in pictures. Others were posting 

humorous quotes in their factual bio statements, posting group photos, and more. The main purpose of 

these tactics is to appear less unappealing or show fewer undesirable traits to their matches.  

Various authors supported the idea that using deception tactics increases one’s likability and initial 

impression of themselves leading to different scenarios. Alexopoulos, Timmermans, and McNallie 

(2020) determined the relationship of online application use to infidelity. The results show a positive 

correlation between self-perceived desirability and an intention to commit infidelity. Deception tactics 

can also be used in catfishing relationships to appear more trustworthy or attractive. Mosley, Lancaster, 

Parker, and Campbell (2020) explored the inter-relationship of attachment styles with gender and 
34 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

catfish status in online dating. Predators have the tendency to use deceptions on their prey when 

initiating these types of relationships. These individuals create a similar persona in all of their multiple 

outlets of social media while withholding real information about their true identity. Toma, Hancock, 

and Ellison (2008) observed self-representation in online dating profiles. They discovered that the 

information provided did deviate from one of the participant’s observable characteristics. Since these 

discrepancies dealt with more observable characteristics, it is considered intentional and can be 

operationalized as deception. The individual’s purpose follows the belief that altering information will 

make them more desirable to their potential partners.  

Barnacz, Amati, Fenton, Johnson, and Keenan (2009) examined the relationship between the ability to 

detect deception in females and their baseline knowledge about how men lie. The data results indicated 

that females were accurate in detecting female deceptions, but not male deceptions. This led to the 

belief that deception detection skills could be based on perceptual monitoring rather than cognitive 

monitoring. Thus, giving an individual more awareness and a better sense of judgment in their dating 

circumstances. Deception detective skills can lead to a better chance of a successful relationship online.  

1.1 Evolutionary Theory & Hyperpersonal Communication Theory Model 

Online dating is becoming a more popular approach to finding a potential partner. An individual’s 

interest in online dating can be caused by many factors, but how an individual gets that partner is what 

differentiates the result of success in their relationships. These two theories explore more on this idea.  

The Evolutionary Theory Model is how individuals compete with each other to increase their chances 

of reproduction and survival. The competition between people can be differentiated by the amount of 

quality and quantitative resources an individual possesses. Intrasexual selection deals with competing 

within the same sex, while intersexual selection deals with an individual’s preferential choice on their 

partner. The guiding theory further addresses the different components of why deception tactics can be 

used in online dating and why being aware of these tactics are important in order to achieve better 

quality and success in a relationship (Buss, 1988).  

According to Fullwood and Atthril-Smith (2019), if the individual has more of a positive representation 

of their ideal self, then they are able to create a favorable outcome. The Hyperpersonal Communication 

Theory Model further addresses the different components as to why it is easier to build connections and 

a better self-image online than offline. This explains why people use photos to show their physical 

attractiveness online and therefore are more confident in their ability to find a partner. Matched couples 

are able to idealize each other based on their self-representation in their profile and through shared 

messages. The more appealing personal characteristics of each individual tend to be overemphasized, 

which influences the judgment on each other’s behavior and identity. These deceptions make the person 

appear more desirable and builds a fabricated relationship (Gentile, 2013). 

Following the guiding principles of Hyperpersonal Communication Theory and Evolutionary theory, 

this study explores how dating deceptive tactics and self-perception affects relationships within dating 

applications. 
35 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

2. Method 

This study utilizes a Posttest-Only Design with Randomization. A convenience sampling method was 

utilized to gain participants. Participants were over the age of 18 and had at least one online dating 

application and an account with the Amazon Mechanical Turks. For the experiment, participants were 

required to use electronics such as a laptop, desktop computer, smartphone, or a tablet device such as 

an iPad to complete the anonymous surveys. The surveys were distributed through Amazon Mechanical 

Turk. Prior to the administration of the survey, participants were informed about the purpose of the 

study and were assured that participation was voluntary, anonymous, and confidential. Depending on 

their age, gender, and past experiences with or without deception in online dating, participants were 

analyzed and subjected to different groups. All groups were required to fill up the same surveys in 

order to obtain information about dating experiences with deception or no deception, interest in online 

dating, online dating application experiences, length of the relationships, relationship quality and 

satisfaction, a measurement in Machiavellianism personality traits and the levels of deception with their 

mating acts and tactics. The participation of this trial was voluntary, anonymous, and confidential. After 

survey completion, the participants viewed a debriefing statement and were compensated $0.50 for 

their participation.  

The first questionnaire gathered the participants’ demographic information. The demographic 

information included age, race, gender, religion, relationship status, educational level, online 

applications, and other characteristics. Three questions involving participant’s past experiences with 

deception through online dating were asked. The information was used to subject the participants into 

two groups: with or without previous experiences with deception. For example, one question asked was, 

“In the past while using any of these dating applications, have you ever encountered catfishing and/or 

deception?” If the participant answered yes, participants were asked another question, “If you answered 

yes to the previous question, what kind of deception have you encountered?” 

The Machiavellian IV Scale and Taxonomy of Deceptive Mating Acts and Tactics Scale were chosen as 

the instruments of quantitative assessment due to the high reliability and validity in assessing the 

relationship between online dating applications or sites and deceptive tactics.  

Dussault, Hojjat and Boone (2013) used the Machiavellian IV Scale consisting of a 20-item Likert 

scale that measures a person’s willingness to use manipulative tactics, measure level distrust of others, 

and lack of morals and concerns. The scale has been psychometrically tested and has shown high 

test-retest reliability (r > .75) and high internal consistency of alpha coefficients (a = 0.70 - 0.80). The 

questions were rated on a 5-point Likert scale of 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). The scoring ranges from 20 

(least Machiavellian) to 100 (most Machiavellian). A participant scoring 60 or more is considered as a 

high Machiavellian and below 60 is considered as low Machiavellian. A participant scoring 60 or above 

tends to manipulate others for their own personal gain and a participant scoring below 60 is likely to be 

more honest and show altruistic traits. An example statement used is “It is safest to assume that all 

36 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance,” which participants 

had to rate.  

Dussault, Hojjat and Boone (2013) also used the Taxonomy of Deceptive Mating Acts and Tactics 

Scale that consists of a 72-self report item Likert Scale that measures the differences in deceptive 

tactics in order to gain attraction in intrasexual and intersexual relationships. The scale has also been 

psychometrically tested and has been reported to show high internal consistency (a > 0.93). The 

questions were rated on a 5-point Likert scale of 1 (never) to 5 (very frequently). The score ranges from 

72 points to 360 points. The questions were grouped into four types of deceptions. The questions were 

altered to address the deceptive tactics used in online dating. An example question would be “Have you 

ever posted pictures with exotic animals (e.g., lions, tigers, crocodiles, etc.) to appear more masculine 

on a dating profile?”  

These two surveys were analyzed using SPSS to show statistical significance. After the data from the 

participants was collected, all surveys were numbered into cases and entered into SPSS. The survey 

data was further analyzed using Independent T-test samples, ANOVAs, and Pearson correlation for 

statistical significance. One-way ANOVA was used to find the difference between the age group and 

the likelihood of deception. An Independent T-test was used to find the difference between gender and 

their use of deception, while Pearson correlation was used to look at the different variables and their 

relationship. 

 

3. Result 

The total sample size collected from Amazon Mechanical Turk was 297 participants. The majority of 

the participants were male and less than half were females. Participants experienced in deception or 

catfishing were also taken into consideration. 

 

Table 1. Age of Participants 

 

 
37 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

Table 2. Influence by Friends to Use Online Dating Apps/Dating Applications 

 
 

 
Figure 1. Encounter with Deception or Catfishing 

 

 

Figure 2. Types of Deception Participants Encountered 
38 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

A relationship between two variables was first assessed. The relationship between our Machiavellian 

Personality Traits (as measured by Machiavellian IV scale) and their use of deception on dating 

applications (as measured by the Deception Mating Acts and Tactics Scale) was investigated using the 

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a strong, positive correlation between the 

two variables, r = .783, n = 159, p = .000, with elevated Machiavellian personality traits is associated 

with higher levels of deception in the utilization of dating applications. The results above demonstrate 

the likelihood of manipulation and its relation to one’s personality traits (See Table 3). 

 

Table 3. Correlation of Machiavellian IV Scale and Taxonomy of Deceptive Mating Acts and 

Tactic Scale 

 

 

The relationship between our participants’ experiences with deception or catfishing and their use of 

deception on dating applications (as measured by the Deception Mating Acts and Tactics Scale) was 

investigated using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a negative 

correlation between the two variables, r = -.321 n = 290, p = .000, with participants’ past experience 

with deception or catfishing associated with the use of deception. People who have experienced 

deception are less likely to use deception or manipulation techniques in online dating (see Table 4). 

 

 

 

 
39 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

Table 4. Correlation of Experienced Deception/Catfishing and Deception Mating Tactics & Acts 

Scale 

 
 

The data supported the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the overall likelihood uses of 

deception as a whole between genders. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the 

deception level (as measured by Deception Mating Acts and Tactics Scale) for males and females (See 

Table 5).  

 

Table 5. Independent t-test Sample of Gender with Deception Mating Tactics & Acts Scale 

 
 

There was no significant difference found in the scores of the overall deception between males and 

females (t (176) = 1.096, p = 0.275, two-tailed). When the overall deception scale was further broken 

down into four different components: Commitment, Financial, Physical, and Linguistic, a significant 

difference was found between the genders of the participants (See Appendix E). There was a significant 

difference found in the scores of Commitment Deception for males (M = 31.88, SD = 8.15; t (267) = 

2.059, p = .040, two-tailed) and females (M = 29.69, SD =9.019; t (267) = 2.059, p = .040, two-tailed). 

The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = 2.186, 95% Cl: - 0.96 to 4.276) was 
40 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

minimal effect (eta squared = 0.01). There was a significant difference found in the scores of Linguistic 

Deception for males (M = 99.48, SD = 24.868; t (228) = 1.966, p = .053, two-tailed) and females (M = 

92.77, SD =26.251; t (228) = 1.966, p = .053, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the 

means (mean difference = 6.714, 95% Cl: - .0151 to 13.44) was a minimal effect (eta squared = 0.01). 

There is a higher mean average for commitment and linguistic deception for males than females. There 

was no significant difference found for both Financial and Physical Deceptions between females and 

males. (See Table 6).  

 

Table 6. Independent t-test Sample of Gender with Taxonomy of Deceptive Mating Acts and 

Tactic Scale (Broken down to 4 components: Commitment, Financial, Linguistic, and Physical) 

 

 

 

The data does support the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the likelihood use of 

deception of the different age groups. A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to 

explore the three different age groups and their use of deception on dating applications (as measured by 

the Deception Mating Acts and Tactics Scale). Group 1 was under 28 years old; group 2 was between 

29 to 35 years old and group 3 was between the ages of 36 and above. There was no significant 

difference found between the age groups (F (176) = 1.380, p = .093) and no effect size was found (See 
41 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

Table 7). A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the three different 

age groups and their level of Machiavellian Personality Traits (as measured by the Machiavellian IV 

Scale). Group 1 was under 28 years old; group 2 was between 29 to 35 years old and group 3 was 

between the ages of 36 and above. There was no significant difference found between the age groups (F 

(254) = 1.1316, p = .111) and no effect size was found (See Table 8). 

 

Table 7. One-Way ANOVA Analysis between Age Groups and Machiavellian IV Scale 

 
 

Table 8. One-Way ANOVA Analysis between Age Groups and Taxonomy of Deceptive Mating 

Acts and Tactic Scale 

 
 

Other relationships between different variables in the data were analyzed. The results of these 

relationships support the hypothesis that a positive correlation in owning multiple dating applications 

with the increased use of deceptive tactics. The relationship between our participants’ amount of dating 

applications and their use of deception on dating applications (as measured by the Deception Mating 

Acts and Tactics Scale) was investigated using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. 

There was a weak, positive correlation between the two variables but a strong significance, r = .200 n = 

290, p = .008, with participants’ amount of dating applications associated with the use of deception (see 

Table 9 and Table 10).  

 

 

 
42 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

Table 9. Correlation between Age and Deception Mating Tactics & Acts Scale 

 
 

Table 10. Correlation between Gender and Deception Mating Tactics & Acts Scale 

 

 

The relationship between participant’s daily use dating applications and their use of deception on 

dating applications (as measured by Deception Mating Acts and Tactics Scale) was investigated using 

the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a strong, positive correlation between 

the two variables, (Tinder: r = .633, n = 172, p = .000; Coffee Meet Bagels: r = .718, n = 173, p = .000; 

Hinge: r = 641, n=173, p = .000; Bumble: r = .696, n = 174, p = .000; and Other Applications 

participants’ listed: r = .649, n = 172, p = .000), use of dating applications associated with higher levels 

of deception in utilization in dating applications. Based on this data, the more time spent on dating 

applications, correlates to an increased utilization of deceptive tactics in the application (See Table 11). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
43 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

Table 11. Correlation of Daily Use of Dating Applications and Machiavellian IV Scale 

 

 

The relationship between a participant’s daily use dating applications and participants’ level of 

Machiavellian Personality Traits (as measured by the Machiavellian IV Scale) was investigated using 

the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. The significance of the correlation between all 

applications is equal, or all applications have moderate strong relationships. There was a strong, 

positive correlation between the two variables, (Tinder: r = .517, n = 252, p = .000; Coffee Meet Bagels: 

r = .589, n = 247, p = .000; Hinge: r = .546, n=249, p = .000; Bumble: r = .538, n = 250, p = .000; and 

Other Applications participants’ listed: r = .526, n = 245, p = .000), use of dating applications 

associated with elevated levels of Machiavellian Personality Traits. Therefore, the more time spent on 

dating applications, there is greater expectation of scoring higher in their level of Machiavellianism. 

(See Table 12). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
44 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

Table 12. Correlation of Daily Use of Dating Applications and Taxonomy of Deceptive Mating 

Acts and Tactic Scale 

 
 

Finally, the relationship between the different dating applications and participant’s use of deception on 

dating applications (as measured by the Deception Mating Acts and Tactics Scale) was investigated 

using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a strong, positive correlation between 

the two variables, the use of all dating applications associated with elevated levels of all the different 

types of deception being used in all of those dating applications (See Table 13).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
45 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

Table 13. Correlation of Daily Use of Dating Applications, and Taxonomy of Deceptive Mating 

Acts and Tactic Scale 

 

 

In comparison to the significant level of strength of relationship between the dating applications to the 

use of deception, Coffee Meet Bagels Application shows the strongest relationship between three out of 

four types of deceptions: (Commitment Deception: r = .666, n = 263, p = .000; Financial Deception: r 
46 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

= .657, n = 264, p = .000; Linguistic Deception: r = .705, n = 223, p = .000). Bumble shows the 

strongest relationship for Physical Deception across all applications, (r = .671, n = 225, p = .000). 

Tinder shows the weakest relationship across the four types of deceptions: (Commitment Deception: r 

= .514, n = 265, p = .000; Financial Deception: r = .520, n = 266, p = .000; Linguistic Deception: r 

= .576, n = 225, p = .000, and Physical Deception: r = .512, n = 225, p = .000). Users of all of these 

dating applications utilize deceptive tactics in their profile and online dating experiences. 

 

4. Discussion 

This study was conducted to further understand how dating deceptive tactics and self-perception affect 

the building of relationships within dating applications. The research results support the null hypothesis 

that there is no relationship between gender and age to the likelihood use of deception and the level of 

Machiavellian Personality Traits. The findings of the research support the experimental hypothesis that 

there is a positive correlation with owning multiple dating applications to increased use of deceptive 

tactics. The results of this study ties with the guiding theories of Hyperpersonal Communication Theory 

and Evolutionary Theory.  

The first result to look at is the negative correlation between the participants’ past experiences with 

deception or catfishing and the likelihood of deception. Buss’s (1988) Evolutionary Psychology 

explores the idea of negativity bias. People are wired to think negatively because being aware of any 

potential threats can help with a higher success rate on survival and reproduction. The potential threats 

in dating are mostly psychosocial threats such as manipulation, lying, and cheating. Individuals 

recognizing the red flags and avoiding the past traumas from previous relationships gives an increased 

chance of success in the future. A tighter dating competition pool could lessen the chances of finding 

the right partner. Increasing the number of applications or the use of deception techniques does increase 

the probability of success.  

The statistically significant difference found in both the Commitment and Linguistic deception between 

the two genders can be explained through both theories. Gentile’s (2013) Hyperpersonal 

Communication Theory Model is about developing a positive self-representation online. A first 

impression is made based on what the user has put in their profile. Writing fake self-referential quotes 

on the dating profile and lying about factual statements such as height is one of the few ways a person 

is able to make themselves appear more attractive and likable than they actually are in person. These 

examples are useful to men as it allows females to evaluate and make the decision to swipe. The more 

information put in the profile, the likely they are being swiped by their matches.  

In conclusion, these results further support the idea that deceptive tactics have a prominent role in the 

modern dating era. As individuals, becoming more aware of these deceptive tactics will further give a 

person a better sense of judgment in their dating experiences and gain a more successful relationship in 

the future.  

 
47 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

4.1 Limitations and Future Research 

All survey data collected was self-reported and errors of recall may have reduced the overall accuracy 

of the data collected. It would have been helpful for more participants to provide a diverse age group, 

education, income which would provide further data to study statistical significance or correlations 

within different variables. Furthermore, more applications for assessing one’s daily use are required. 

Future surveys may be administered in the future so that data results can be compared. 

 

References 

Alexopoulos, C., Timmermans, E., & McNallie, J. (2020). Swiping more, committing less: Unraveling 

the links among dating app use, dating app success, and intention to commit infidelity. Computers in 

Human Behavior, 102, 172-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.009 

Barnacz, A., Amati, F., Fenton, C., Johnson, A., & Keenan, J. P. (2009). Deception and dating: 

Knowledge of tactics may improve detection accuracy. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and 

Cultural Psychology, 3(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099335 

Booth, J. (2019, August 15). “Dogfishing” Is The Dishonest New Dating Trend No One Can Resist. 

Retrieved from https://www.dmarge.com/2019/08/dogfishing.html 

Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal 

of personality and social psychology, 54(4), 616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.616 

Clement, J. (2020, April). U.S. dating apps by audience size 2019. Retrieved from 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/826778/most-popular-dating-apps-by-audience-size-usa/v 

Dunlop, J. (2018). App-ily Ever After-Self-Presentation and Perception of Others on the Dating App 

Tinder. 

Dussault, M., Hojjat, M., & Boone, R. T. (2013). Machiavellianism and dating: Deception and intimacy. 

Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 41(2), 283-294. 
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.2.283 

Fullwood, C., & Attrill-Smith, A. (2018). Up-Dating: Ratings of Perceived Dating Success Are Better 

Online than Offline. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 21(1), 11-15. 

https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0631 

Gentile, C. J. (2013). Using attachment theory and the hyperpersonal model to examine relationship 

maintenance, satisfaction, and affectionate communication in romantic relationships. 

Mosley, M. A., Lancaster, M., Parker, M. L., & Campbell, K. (2020). Adult attachment and online dating 

deception: A theory modernized. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 35(2), 227-243. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2020.1714577 

Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2012). What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in online 

dating profiles. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 78-97. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01619.x 

48 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.009
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099335
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.616
https://www.statista.com/statistics/826778/most-popular-dating-apps-by-audience-size-usa/v
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.2.283
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0631
https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2020.1714577
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01619.x


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

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(8), 1023-1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208318067 

Tooke, W., & Camire, L. (1991). Patterns of deception in intersexual and intrasexual mating strategies. 

Ethology and Sociobiology, 12(5), 345-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(91)90030-T 

Vogels, E. A. (2020, February). 10 facts about Americans and online dating. Retrieved from 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/06/10-facts-about-americans-and-online-dating/ 

 

49 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208318067
https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(91)90030-T
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/06/10-facts-about-americans-and-online-dating/

	Original Paper
	Understanding Deception Tactics with the Utilization of Dating Applications
	Nicole Claire Arca1, Abby Halston1*, Hans Chun1 & Joseph Allen1
	1 School of Education and Behavioral Sciences, Chaminade University, Honolulu, United States
	Abstract
	This study investigated the relationship between the utilization of deceptive tactics and dating applications. The Machiavellian IV Scale, Taxonomy of Deceptive Mating Acts, and Tactics Scale were analyzed and used to gather information from participa...
	Keywords
	Table 1. Age of Participants
	Table 2. Influence by Friends to Use Online Dating Apps/Dating Applications
	Figure 1. Encounter with Deception or Catfishing
	Figure 2. Types of Deception Participants Encountered
	Table 3. Correlation of Machiavellian IV Scale and Taxonomy of Deceptive Mating Acts and Tactic Scale
	Table 4. Correlation of Experienced Deception/Catfishing and Deception Mating Tactics & Acts Scale
	Table 5. Independent t-test Sample of Gender with Deception Mating Tactics & Acts Scale
	Table 6. Independent t-test Sample of Gender with Taxonomy of Deceptive Mating Acts and Tactic Scale (Broken down to 4 components: Commitment, Financial, Linguistic, and Physical)
	The data does support the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the likelihood use of deception of the different age groups. A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the three different age groups and their ...
	Table 7. One-Way ANOVA Analysis between Age Groups and Machiavellian IV Scale
	Table 8. One-Way ANOVA Analysis between Age Groups and Taxonomy of Deceptive Mating Acts and Tactic Scale
	Table 9. Correlation between Age and Deception Mating Tactics & Acts Scale
	Table 10. Correlation between Gender and Deception Mating Tactics & Acts Scale
	Table 11. Correlation of Daily Use of Dating Applications and Machiavellian IV Scale
	The relationship between a participant’s daily use dating applications and participants’ level of Machiavellian Personality Traits (as measured by the Machiavellian IV Scale) was investigated using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. T...
	Table 12. Correlation of Daily Use of Dating Applications and Taxonomy of Deceptive Mating Acts and Tactic Scale
	Table 13. Correlation of Daily Use of Dating Applications, and Taxonomy of Deceptive Mating Acts and Tactic Scale
	References

