Skip to main content

"Everyone Says Them": Deception Typologies, Probabilistic Trust, and Grassroots Safety Knowledge Among Gay Dating App Users in China

Yibo Meng ; Lyumanshan Ye ; Yingfangzhong Sun ; Bingyi Liu ; Huidi Lu ; Xiaolan Ding (2026) — Companion of the Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW Companion ’26)

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: 10.1145/3785651.3831521 (opens in a new tab)

Country:   China
Tags:   China, Community Safety Knowledge, Financial Fraud, Gay Dating Apps, Lgbtq Safety, Online Deception, Probabilistic Trust, Romance Scams
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 examines deception among gay dating app users in China, asking how users experience, identify, and respond to deceptive interactions on platforms such as Blued, Aloha, Fanka, and Soul. Employing semi-structured interviews with 22 gay male participants, the researchers explore deception as an interactional process rather than solely a matter of profile accuracy. The work aims to illuminate how trust is built and risk is managed within a stigmatized social context where formal help and accountability may be limited. The authors identify a typology of deception that extends beyond profile misrepresentation to include relational, emotional, financial, commercial, and identity- or role-based deception. Relational sexual deception and sustained emotional manipulation were common, with some cases involving financial fraud or commercial promotions disguised as ordinary interaction. Identity and role misrepresentation—such as false photos or misrepresented sexual roles—also played a role. Verification emerges as a graduated, provisional activity: users seek corroborating signals through follow-up questions, multiple photos, and, when appropriate, real-time video calls. Yet no single method guarantees safety, and participants treat trust as probabilistic rather than absolute. Community knowledge and collective sensemaking emerge as central to risk recognition. Participants repeatedly share experiences, narrate encounters, and distill recurring patterns (taolu) to form informal, shared rules for safer interaction. This grassroots knowledge partially compensates for inadequate platform safeguards, guiding judgments about when to proceed or withdraw. The study reframes trust as ongoing uncertainty management, shaped by communal practices that translate ambiguous encounters into usable safety knowledge within a marginalized dating ecosystem.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Prior research has largely emphasized heterosexual Western dating contexts, profile-level misrepresentation, and self-presentation. The paper identifies limited attention to sexual minority men in China, practical verification and coping learned through use, and the collective community processes through which deceptive encounters become shared safety knowledge.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The study used 50–60 minute recorded, anonymized online semi-structured interviews with 22 gay male users of dating or social apps in China, aged 19–60. Participants were recruited through snowball sampling and had prior app-use experience. Two researchers independently coded transcripts using thematic analysis, iteratively refining codes concerning problematic interactions, judgment cues, coping, and community experience until thematic saturation.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The findings are based on a small, nonrandom snowball sample of 22 Chinese gay male app users, many with substantial platform experience. Thus, reported practices and community knowledge may not represent newer users, other LGBTQ+ populations, heterosexual users, or users in other national contexts. The qualitative interview design documents self-reported experiences and interpretations rather than independently verifying alleged deception or measuring prevalence.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Evaluate privacy-preserving, opt-in platform features that surface contextual cues, enable reporting of uncertain or uncomfortable interactions without requiring proof, and support anonymized peer experience-sharing. Research should assess whether such features improve safety without increasing surveillance, disclosure, stigmatization, or algorithmic visibility risks for LGBTQ+ users.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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