Skip to main content

Adult attachment and online dating deception: a theory modernized

Marissa A. Mosley ; Morgan Lancaster ; M. L. Parker ; Kelly Campbell (2020) — Sexual and Relationship Therapy

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
Unavailable
Average per calendar year
Citation count unavailable

Counts reflect Google Scholar’s coverage and do not measure research quality. Source, calculation and limitations

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1080/14681994.2020.1714577 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   United States
Tags:   Adult Attachment, Attachment Anxiety, Attachment Avoidance, Catfishing, Gender, Online Dating Deception, Online Only Relationships, Romantic Deception
What do these research terms mean?
Preprint
A manuscript shared before formal peer review and publication. Check whether a later published version is available.
Dataset
A collection of data or examples for others to inspect or reuse. It can appear in Library search and topic mapping, but RSRC does not use dataset records as evidence in Research Insights.
Dissertation or thesis
Research submitted for an academic degree. This describes its format, not its reliability.
Journal article
An article published in a journal. This label alone does not establish peer review, study quality, or how well the findings apply elsewhere.
Qualitative research
Examines experiences, meanings, or processes, often through interviews or observations. It can explain how something happens without estimating how common it is.
Quantitative research
Uses numerical measurements to describe patterns or test relationships. A relationship between two measurements does not by itself show that one causes the other.
Systematic review
Uses a planned, documented method to find and assess research addressing a question. Its conclusions still depend on the included studies and what the search covered.
Meta-analysis
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Combining studies does not remove weaknesses in their design or make unlike populations interchangeable.
Not classified
This record has no recognized label in this filter. It does not mean the publication used no method, or that no research exists.

Definitions draw on DataCite resource types; Cochrane review methods; NLM: association and causation. RSRC’s dataset and classification rules are explained in our methodology.

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
                

            

                    

                
Source updates

                

                    No notice found at last check
                

            

                    

                
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:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Source updates

                    

                    
No incoming update notice was found in the dated Crossref response. Coverage is incomplete, particularly for corrections and expressions of concern; this is not a guarantee that the source is valid or unchanged.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Last source-status attempt:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
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

            
This article investigates how adult attachment styles relate to online dating deception, specifically catfishing, in online-only relationships. The authors frame catfishing within Attachment Theory and aim to determine whether gender and two attachment dimensions—anxiety and avoidance—predict whether a person is more likely to be a perpetrator or a target of online dating deception. Using a cross-sectional design, the study analyzed data from 1,107 adults recruited via social media, volunteer boards, a blog, and university pools. Participants completed measures of demographic characteristics, catfishing status (perpetrator, target, or both), and adult attachment using the Experiences in Close Relationships-Short Form (ECR-S). The researchers conducted three logistic regression models to predict catfishing status from gender alone, gender with avoidance, and gender with avoidance and anxiety. The sample consisted mostly of women (917) and men (190), with women more often reporting catfish targets and men more often reporting catfish perpetrators. Findings indicate that men are more likely than women to be catfish perpetrators, while women are more likely to be targets. Attachment anxiety independently predicted catfishing status, increasing the likelihood of perpetration, even when controlling for gender and avoidance. Attachment avoidance also showed predictive value, but its effect diminished when anxiety was accounted for, suggesting anxiety may be the more salient predictor in this online dating deception context. The authors discuss clinical implications for attachment-informed practice and note limitations related to cross-sectional design, sampling, and self-identification of catfishing status.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies limited research on attachment in relationships maintained solely through technology and comparatively little information about perpetrators of online dating deception. It also notes the absence of a formalized catfishing assessment instrument, limiting the ability to assess behavioral severity and degree. The authors call for comparisons between catfishing-experienced participants and typical online daters.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
A cross-sectional convenience sample of 1,107 adults who self-reported catfishing experience as a target, perpetrator, or both completed online questionnaires. Recruitment occurred through social media, volunteer boards, a blog, and university participant pools. Adult attachment anxiety and avoidance were measured with the 12-item Experiences in Close Relationships–Short Form. The authors used ANOVA, t-tests, and three binary logistic regression models to predict target versus perpetrator/both status from gender, avoidance, and anxiety.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
Cross-sectional convenience sampling prevents causal inference and limits generalizability. The study had no control group of typical online daters. Catfishing status was self-identified, posing a threat to internal validity, and no formalized catfishing assessment was available. The sample was predominantly women, highly educated, and demographically bounded; the authors state that findings should be generalized only to represented groups. The final model explained 7% of variance in catfishing status.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Develop and use a measure covering the spectrum, severity, and degree of catfishing behaviors. Include a control group of typical online daters. Recruit a more racially and ethnically diverse sample. Further research is also needed to substantiate the proposed attachment-informed clinical recommendations.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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