Skip to main content

Catfish: Exploring the Individual Predictors and Interpersonal Characteristics of Deceptive Online Romantic Relationships

Kelly Campbell ; M. L. Parker (2022) — Contemporary Family 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: 10.1007/s10591-022-09646-5 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   United States
Tags:   Catfishing, Identity Deception, Impression Management, Narcissism, Online Dating, Online Romantic Relationships, Perpetrators, Targets
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 study investigates catfishing in online romantic relationships by comparing perpetrators who misrepresent themselves online with targets who are deceived, using a triangulation mixed-methods design guided by the Couple and Family Technology Framework. The sample consisted of 156 catfish perpetrators and 826 targets who completed a web-based survey, with additional qualitative data drawn from open-ended questions about motivations and guilt. The researchers aimed to identify intrapersonal and interpersonal characteristics that distinguish perpetrators from targets and to illuminate relationship attributes in catfish unions. Quantitative results indicate that perpetration is more common among men, individuals with higher education, and those with higher religiosity, and less common among heterosexual and Hispanic/Latin participants. Impressions management and narcissism emerged as positive predictors of perpetration, while mate value and conscientiousness were negative predictors. In terms of relationship quality, catfish unions showed lower satisfaction and lower levels of passionate love compared with what is typically seen in face-to-face relationships. Communication in these relationships relied heavily on text and instant messaging, and targets tended to disclose more than perpetrators. The most frequent motives for identity selection were emulating an ideal self and enhancing mate value. Regarding guilt, about half of perpetrators reported feeling guilt, primarily due to betrayal or keeping the relationship secret; the other half did not report guilt. Qualitative analyses yielded nine themes for identity selection (e.g., emulating an ideal self, entertainment, anonymity) and seven themes related to guilt and its justifications (e.g., lying to self or others, secrecy, fear of consequences). The study notes limitations including retrospective self-report, a broad definition of catfishing, potential social desirability bias, and limited measurement reliability, suggesting caution in generalizing beyond the Southern California–based sample and indicating directions for future, more comprehensive work. Overall, findings offer clinically relevant contrasts between perpetrators and targets and point to areas for therapeutic attention.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The authors identify limited empirical research distinguishing catfish perpetrators from targets and no prior comparison of interpersonal characteristics in catfish versus typical romantic relationships. The study also examined only a limited set of interpersonal characteristics. It remains unclear how catfish perpetrators and targets differ from non-catfished online daters and from people who do not use online dating.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
A single-phase triangulation mixed-methods web survey compared self-identified catfish perpetrators (n=156) and targets (n=826). Participants were recruited from a Southern California university and online announcements. Quantitative logistic regressions tested demographic and intrapersonal predictors of perpetrator status; t-tests compared relationship characteristics. Open-ended perpetrator responses on identity selection and guilt were thematically coded using the constant comparative method.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
Catfish status was self-identified under a broad fake-identity definition, so relationship types may have varied. The sample included relationships differing widely in duration, number, and time since ending; retrospective reports may be biased. Perpetrators may have been deceptive in survey responses. There was no comparison group of online daters without catfishing experience. Several constructs used abbreviated scales with some reliabilities below .80, and only a limited range of interpersonal characteristics was assessed.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Future studies should assess whether perpetrators perceive targets as real, examine dark-triad traits, investigate why catfish relationships persist, and test proposed clinical interventions. Researchers should use comparison groups of online daters without catfishing experience and people who do not date online, apply full-length measures, include social-desirability measures, and better standardize relationship type and timing of retrospective reports.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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