Skip to main content

“CATFISHING” : EXPOSING TEEN RECEPTION ON MTV CATFISH ONLINE DATING

Garini Tiara Senja ; Santi Delliana (2022) — Profetik: Jurnal Komunikasi

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

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


              
              

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 Indonesian adolescents aged 19–24, active in online dating and living in Jakarta, interpret and react to catfishing as depicted in MTV’s Catfish: The TV Show, episode “Jake & Taylor.” Grounded in Stuart Hall’s reception theory, the study asks how teen online daters receive and interpret the program’s catfishing narratives. The authors describe three reading positions—Dominant-Hegemonic, Negotiated, and Oppositional—and apply them to documentary-like scenes from the episode to map viewers’ meaning-making processes. Methodologically, the authors conduct in-depth interviews with 18 informants who watched the episode and analyze 18 pieces of information across six scene categories. The research design emphasizes qualitative understanding of audience interpretation rather than generalizable statistics. It situates the audience within a Jakarta-based, tech-enabled context and ties reception to broader media effects theories such as encoding/decoding and uses-and-gratifications. The study also documents how information from the Catfish team’s investigations—reaching out to the catfish, tracking photos, and attempting face-to-face meetings—serves as prompts for viewers’ readings about authenticity, trust, and online risk. Principal findings indicate a spectrum of readings among informants, with many responses aligning to Dominant-Hegemonic or Negotiated positions in various scenes, and a substantial portion oriented toward Oppositional interpretations overall. The authors conclude that catfishing prompts consideration of identity, vulnerability, and safety online, and they discuss implications for media literacy and future research, while noting the qualitative, context-specific nature of the results.

Identified Gaps

The study examines audience reception of a single televised catfishing case rather than actual victimization or perpetrator behavior. It leaves limited evidence on how media portrayals affect online-dating behavior, how trust develops in real catfishing relationships, and how findings apply beyond young online daters in Jakarta.

Methods

Descriptive qualitative audience-reception study using Stuart Hall's encoding-decoding framework. The researchers conducted in-depth interviews with six Jakarta-based online daters aged 19–24 who had watched the "Jake & Taylor" episode of MTV's Catfish: The TV Show. Interview responses to 18 episode information items were classified as dominant-hegemonic, negotiated, or oppositional; the study reports data collection, theory comparison, triangulation, and conclusion drawing.

Limitations

The evidence is based on six purposively defined viewers from DKI Jakarta and one television episode. It captures interpretations of a mediated case, not verified experiences of romance-scam victims or offenders. Findings are therefore context-specific and cannot establish prevalence, causal media effects, or generalizable risk patterns.

Future Work

Test media effects quantitatively using Uses and Gratifications. Conduct qualitative case studies. Apply Social Penetration and Self-Disclosure theories to online interpersonal relationships. Explore the catfishing phenomenon through Human and Posthuman perspectives.

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