Skip to main content

Developing online deception literacy while looking for love

Toma, Catalina L (2016) — Media, Culture & Society

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1177/0163443716681660 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Global
Tags:   Deception Detection, Facebook, Global South, Online Dating Platforms, Online Deception Literacy, Romance Scams, Trustworthiness Cues
Citation tools
Download RIS Download BibTeX 


              
              

            

          

        


      

      

    

        
Transparency

        
Evidence and review status

        
This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

    


    

                    

                
Source basis

                

                    Downloaded PDF
                

            

                    

                
AI-generated page content

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Automated checks

                

                    Passed
                

            

                    

                
Administrative approval

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Human content review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

                    

                
Subject-matter-expert review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

            


    

        
            How this was prepared
        
        

                            

                    
Source basis

                    

                    
RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    PDF added to RSRC:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
AI-generated page content

                    

                    
AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Document analysis recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Synopsis generation recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Page record updated:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Automated checks

                    

                    
The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Checks completed:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                            

                            
                                View passed checks (3)
                            
                            
    
                                                                    
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
    • 
                                                                    
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
    • 
                                                                    
  • English-source lexical grounding check
    • 
                                                            

                        

                                        

                

                            

                    
Administrative approval

                    

                    
An authenticated administrator approved the bibliographic record for public Library display. This is not a review of every research claim.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Approved for public display:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Human content review

                    

                    
No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Subject-matter-expert review

                    

                    
RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.


                    
                                        

                

                    

    


    

        Review-state definitions

        Found a possible error?
        Request a correction.
    



    



              

        
                  

            
Synopsis

            
The article presents a neutral, source-based synopsis of Catalina L. Toma’s 2016 response to Payal Arora and colleagues’ work on online romance in the global south, focusing on the emergence of “online deception literacy.” It explains that Facebook has become a primary channel for seeking romance in the global south due to factors such as accessibility, cultural norms limiting cross-gender interaction, aspirations toward high-status connections, and politeness norms that encourage friending strangers. The piece notes that these conditions can expose users to deception and online romance scams, and that some victims may experience substantial financial or emotional harm, though precise prevalence in the region is not established. The synopsis outlines Toma’s aim to synthesize existing social-science research on deception production and detection in online romance, with attention to how users judge trustworthiness and detect deception. It highlights four core areas: how prevalent deception is in online romance, people’s ability to detect it, the cues people rely on to assess credibility, and how effective those cues are in diagnosing deception. The author emphasizes that much deception research has been Western-centric, urging careful generalization to global south users and suggesting that marginalized youth might face distinct risks or sharper incentives to deceive or to detect deception. Key conclusions presented include that online deception detection is generally challenging: even trained professionals perform near chance levels in some contexts, and people rely on a small set of cues that are not reliably diagnostic. The piece also notes that online environments reduce some nonverbal cues but remove baselines for comparison, complicating judgments. Finally, it calls for more research into deception detection among global south users, and for examining how experience with online deception might alter detection accuracy and literacy.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The article identifies no research on the prevalence of romantic deception on Facebook in the global south, no research testing deception-detection ability among users described as savvy in that context, and limited, mixed evidence on online detection in Western countries. It also notes that experience with online deception has not been tested as a moderator of detection accuracy or cue use.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
This response article reviews existing social-scientific literature on deception production and detection in online romantic contexts. It synthesizes prior findings on romance scams, self-presentation in online dating, detection accuracy, trustworthiness cues, and their diagnostic value, while relating these findings to marginalized Facebook users in the global south.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
This is a narrative response and literature review rather than a new empirical study. Much of the reviewed evidence was conducted in Western settings, particularly the United States, so the author cautions against extrapolating findings to global-south users. Claims concerning Facebook romance and deception in the global south are presented as possibilities requiring direct study.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Directly test whether global-south users are more vulnerable to, or more skilled at detecting, online deception than Western users. Investigate whether geographically distant Facebook romantic contacts increase deception exposure. Test whether prior experience with online deception improves detection accuracy and use of diagnostic cues.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

            See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.