Behavioral Insider: There is some level of idealization that goes one with many avatars in Second Life, where people aren't actively deceiving one another so much as idealizing themselves. Is this any different really from putting on a good face and demeanor to the world?

strong>Lina Zhou: Interpersonal deception is traditionally discussed in the context of a physical world, where there exist moral standards that have been developed over a long time to constrain individuals' behavior. For example, everyone is expected to tell the truth. In a virtual world, such a standard may not exist -- or the routine of practice could be different.

For example, in some online games, it is acceptable for a player to win or to gain advantages by deception, which does not violate our moral standards. Second Life is similar to traditional 3D multi-player role-playing games in many ways, but they also differ in two important aspects. First, Second Life allows residents to create their own social world collectively. Second, it encourages residents to trade their creations and skills for real-world money.

The first aspect of Second Life makes it an acceptable practice for an individual to fantasize or idealize themselves, as what a writer would do with the characters in his stories in a novel. The second aspect of Second Life connects the virtual world with the physical world. When an avatar in the virtual world is referenced to a real person in a physical social network, deception can become an issue when an individual intentionally sends information that causes other individuals or groups he or she interacts with to reach a false conclusion or belief. The methods to present self or manage self images in Second Life go beyond putting on a good face, because they vary with individuals' motivations of joining a community.

Behavioral Insider: What is the level of outright deception that goes on in one-to-one anonymous exchanges online? Is some level of lying now presumed?

Zhou: I am not aware of any published empirical data on the level of outright deception in an online environment, especially for one-to-one anonymous exchanges. Traditionally, deception is considered a type of behavior that unfolds over time. Our findings from a longitudinal study of deception in email communication have shown that behavioral cues to deception change over time. Deceivers have to manage to not only deceive receivers, but also monitor any signs of suspicion from the receiver side. Otherwise, deception would fail.

The dynamic adaptation of one's behavior during interpersonal interaction could introduce some truthful information. This has led to uncertainty involved in deception detection. Successful deception requires a complex set of skills. There are cases when someone gets away with outright online deception by hijacking the identity of someone he is familiar with.

It has been repetitively shown, from previous deception research, that people are truth-biased. Although computer-based media provide fertile ground for deception, some deception studies have found that people prefer to deceive face-to-face or by phone, if there is a choice of communication media. One primary issue that goes against online media is their recordability of information exchanges. In addition, the individual factors of a recipient such as his online experience, culture, background, age, gender, goals of online communication, and familiarity with the deceiver, can also moderate the recipient's level of alert of deception. For example, novice users and children are likely to directly extend interpersonal trust in a face-to-face environment to an online environment. Further, research has been shown that Internet communication enhances self-disclosure and honesty.

Behavioral Insider: Does deception online have any potential effect on truthfulness offline?

Zhou: This is a very interesting question. Previous experience of and pleasure from successful online deception could sharpen an individual's deception skill and enhance his success in future deception. On the other hand, the guilt and shame evoked by deception may motivate someone to tell the truth in offline communication, especially when the motivation of online deception is not malicious intent, but to benefit someone. There is a published true story about instant messaging infatuation between a 'single young' man and a female 'teenager.' In reality, both of them are middle-aged [and] have their own families. Regardless of his deception motivation, the man talked about the woman he met online with his colleagues.

Behavioral Insider: I have to wonder whether the kinds of 'deceptive' activity online are not so much new, as more transparent. I wonder, does online behavior just highlight aspects of our social selves that have always been there?

Zhou: Deception has a long-standing history in human society, dating from when there was a need to fight for limited resource for survival. Compared with face-to-face deception, online deception is not only much newer but also somewhat different. Transparency is just one feature of online deception because of the low level of social presence and media richness provided by computer mediation. We have found in our previous research that the patterns of behavioral cues to deception in online communication are different from those in offline communication. For example, deceivers tend to say more, rather than less, in online communication.