ABC Health Insider
The ABC News Medical Unit takes a critical look at the popular medical news of the day.
The Medical Unit is responsible for making recommendations to ABC News programs about coverage of medical stories, writing a daily "Medical Minute" that is sent to ABC-affiliated stations, producing a daily health program on ABC News Now, and overseeing the Health page of ABCNews.com.
RECENT POSTS
- How Can the Flu Kill You?
- Facing America's Doctor Disparity
- No End in Sight for Peanut Product Recalls
- Dr. Tim: Inside the White House Forum on Health Care
- Health Policy Experts Mull Impact of Wyeth Ruling
- Health Coverage for All -- Is It on the Way?
- This Is Your Brain on Envy
- Is a Virus Making You Obese? Fat Chance
- Video Gamers May Be 'Virtually' on Their Own
- Think Birth Control Pills Are Dangerous? Try Pregnancy
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 |
« Previous | Main | Next »
Death and Deception on the Internet
October 03, 2008 9:04 AM
By Joanna Schaffhausen, ABC News Medical Unit
How can you tell if someone is lying over e-mail or on the internet? The temptation is apparently great, and new research suggests people lie more easily over e-mail than they do with a pencil and paper.
Luiba Belkin, an assistant professor of management in the College of Business and Economics at Lehigh University, tested truthfulness in 48 MBA students. Belkin and her colleagues gave the students $89 to divide among themselves and another fictional party, who knew only that the dollar amount fell somewhere between $5 and $100.
Using either e-mail or pen-and-paper, the MBA students reported the size of the pot to the fictional party and explained how the money would be divided.
Over e-mail, students lied about how much money was in the pot more than 92 percent of the time, while those using pen-and-paper lied slightly less than 64 percent.
Something about the anonymity of the Internet appears to foster dishonesty, psychologists find.
But can lying on the Internet be considered a mental illness? Yes, according to some psychologists, who say it’s a growing problem. People desperate for attention make up entire fictional lives for themselves, only to turn around and “die” so that they can attend their own online funerals.
I wouldn’t have believed it possible … until it happened to me.
She said her name was Evie. She was a member of an internet fiction writing community I belonged to back in 2002. At the tender age of 22, she had a toddler, twin babies and a master’s degree. She connected, with other women especially, sending them pictures of her children and little presents in the mail.
Then one day, Evie sent a troubling message to the community: She was sick in the hospital with pneumonia. People sent their good wishes and for a while Evie seemed to be doing better. Her husband, Adam, even brought her laptop to the hospital for her to use.
But suddenly Evie took a turn for the worse. Her heart was failing and she slipped into a coma.
We received regular updates on her condition from Adam, who was by her side through it all. The details were sometimes horrifying. Doctors had to shock her heart back into rhythm. They gave her ice baths to relieve her fever. And worst of all, the nurses had to cut her beautiful waist-length hair.
We prayed for her, but our prayers went unanswered. Adam came online to deliver the awful news: Evie had died.
Shock reverberated through the community. How could this happen to a young, healthy mother in the prime of life?
Her Internet friends cried, wrote tributes and donated to charities in her name. Adam answered every one of their heartfelt e-mails. And despite having a funeral to plan and three young motherless children at home, Adam appeared to be on the Internet all the time.
Whispers started in certain circles. The story didn’t seem to add up. Community members with medical backgrounds said Evie’s treatment hadn’t made any sense. The devastated husband was spending all his time online, encouraging tributes to Evie.
Skepticism grew, especially when no one could find an obituary for Evie online. Finally someone dared say it in public: We’d been duped. Evie was never sick, hadn’t died, and in fact was still with us, posing as Adam. The whole story, including the three small children and her master’s degree, was a lie.
Adam denied it, and many community members rallied around him. They said the disbelievers were horrible people for adding to Adam’s pain.
But then one astute person noticed an interesting detail in Adam’s writing style. He had a strange habit of putting a space between the last word of a sentence and the period -- like this . A check of Evie’s e-mails showed she made the same idiosyncratic punctuation error too. This seemed to prove it -- Evie and Adam were the same person.
This discovery just prompted Evie to adopt a new persona, her sister Aisha, who came online to scold everyone for doubting Evie and Adam. Aisha’s messages had the same strange spaces before the periods at the end of her sentences.
By now, the community was torn apart between those who still believed Aisha and Adam, and those who were furious with Evie for lying.
But the most bizarre twist was yet to come -- Evie herself reappeared! She claimed a stalker had stolen her laptop and faked Evie’s death, even going so far as to learn her odd punctuation style.
Few believed her story, and she was forced to leave the community. But for months afterward, every new member was suspected of being Evie writing under yet another different name. The closeness and trust that members once shared was gone, irreparably harmed.
It turns out Evie’s story is not that unusual and is part of a growing phenomenon called Munchausen’s by Internet. Munchausen’s disease is a mental illness in which people fake being sick to get attention from doctors and nurses. Munchausen’s by Internet is pretty much the same thing, only in cyberspace, with the added bonus that sufferers can even “die” and watch people’s reactions.
According to psychologist Marc Feldman, who coined the phrase Munchausen’s by Internet, people with the disorder frequently target communities devoted to medical issues, such as support groups for cancer patients or people with anorexia.
The communities often dissolve after the truth is uncovered. Some people refuse to believe they’ve been suckered, and the skeptics have trouble trusting again.
Now I know that Evie’s story had all the signs of a classic Munchausen’s by Internet case. Feldman lists the main ways to spot a faker:
- The user’s e-mails or posts consistently duplicate material in other posts, in books or on health-related Web site.
- The characteristics of the supposed illness emerge as caricatures.
- Near-fatal bouts of illness alternate with miraculous recoveries.
- Claims are fantastic, contradicted by subsequent posts, or flatly disprove.
- Continual dramatic events take place in the person's life, especially when other group members have become the focus of attention.
- There is feigned blitheness about crises (for example, going into septic shock) that will predictably attract immediate attention;
- Others apparently posting on behalf of the individual (such as family members and friends) have identical patterns of writing.
Have you ever been duped over e-mail? Why do you think the internet fosters deception?
October 3, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (416)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Well there is lying about Palin's comment in the debate. she said she would not answer the questions "THE WAY" they would like her too. The debate transcript has omited those words.
Posted by: geevill | Oct 3, 2008 9:45:19 AM
I remember Evie well, I was part of the same group. I have a much harder time trusting in the beginning now, but I have made great friends through that group that I have met and visited with frequently. It was a hard lesson and I'm still saddened by it.
D
Posted by: jausti | Oct 3, 2008 11:09:58 AM
Yes I was duped once in the many years that I spent on the internet. But that one time was enough to make me leary of new friends, for awhile.
But I got over it and moved on. I have many wonderful friends that I have met on line and know that the chances of me being duped again are about 25%, but it is well worth it to have so many wonderful friends.
Posted by: Darlene Ong | Oct 3, 2008 11:17:20 AM
This sounds like extreme trolling to me.
Posted by: rigatoni | Oct 3, 2008 3:33:05 PM
I helped 'out' a fairly obvious Munchhausen's by proxy on a Yahoo Group list several years ago. This member made numerous medical claims that not only did not add up, but even lay people could see through. She left in a predictable huff.
What's most interesting is that she is still very active in this area of 'fandom' under a variety of names. And there are people who still defend her despite proof to the contrary.
Posted by: philiater | Oct 3, 2008 7:18:40 PM
Years ago before what we take for granted as the Internet there was a service put out by a company called V-Tech after the " box " they used. It was set up so that there were about 6 different communities. Something for everyone. Now I am 54 now was about 37 then. One thing led to anothernand stupid " fights" started among the psuedo people online. It was terrible!!!
Finally in giant letters on everyones screen came a message from the chat moderator reminding us that we were all way to old to be acting like we were in junior high school.We were adults acting like children. I have never forgotten that. When you take a bunch of bits and bytes and make them real you have truly let go of your humanity.
Posted by: Michael | Oct 4, 2008 6:00:54 PM
The problem with taking or not taking what happens in cyberspace to heart is the fact that, for allot of people, cyberspace communication may be the only real connection with others some people get. And before you say, 'what a looser or get a life' these people, myself included, find it hard to due to physical impairments or limitations (among many many other things) to go out and hang out at a bar or whatever.
So we turn to these online communities and connect with these people, taking a leap of faith that the person you've been talking to isn't just yanking your chain.
What the article descibed, happened to me, and a community I belonged to. A person I had come to know, well, more like 2 people, whom i had no reason to distrust and whom i called "friend" faked one iof their deaths in a horrible car accident.
Now we all know people that have lost someone that way and to whom the incident may be painful for years after. The lieing was bad enough, but thes two then came on a week later, with the supposed 'dead' person affter they'd milked the incident for all it's worth and said "fooled ya!" The words noob and sheep were used and the community went ballistic.
The moral of this story I guess should be...don't drop your common sense at the door when you're dealing with people you've only ever met over a web site or a chat window. We certainly wouldn't do such in a real life meeting with such a person.
Those that are still angry and hurt over what happened, you have every right to be angry, hurt and betrayed, but it should also teach you that there are always going to be people out there seeking attention at any price
Posted by: Jax | Oct 4, 2008 7:52:54 PM
This sounds like extreme trolling to me.techfeel
techfeel.com
Posted by: techfeel | Oct 5, 2008 4:24:04 AM
I'm still a member the the group. "Evie's" deception was beyond the pale. Trust No One (esp on the internet) has become my mantra.
Posted by: kazon | Oct 6, 2008 9:11:26 AM
Much like technology in general, there already is a second-gen version of this happening already. Sorry, this is going to be long.
First, background: There's a cable TV show called Jon & Kate Plus 8, about a couple with a pair of twins and a set of septuplets. It's a G-rated, somewhat pro-Christian family show that generated controversy because of the parents (the mom is abrasive and the dad lackadasial, to mildly paraphrase critics). Internet groups dedicated to snarking about the show eventually evolved/degenerated into an intensely emotional angry mob, rationalizing their hate by saying they only cared about the children's welfare, all of whom were expressed and supported by an increasing number of blogs.
One of these blogs that developed was written by someone called PennMommy, allegedly a former volunteer who helped the family when the septups were babies. Things started getting weird when PennMommy's "son" became ill and she had to travel cross-country to be with him. As he got sicker, her blog posts became, for lack of a better word, crazier. She shut down her blog, but another "son" of hers started new ones, or else posted on other blogs, perpetuating her veracity as well as his brother's deteriorating condition. up, the sick son died, and mourners posted truely sad condolensces everywhere, including a tribute site that was shut almost as soon as it began.
A group of show-lovers, who started a blog with the idea of being much more moderated, yesterday posted information that seems to indicate Penn Mommy is someone who is either an extreme troll or else is suffering from something similar to Munchhausen's By Internet. Here's one post that explains it: http://gosselinsdonotneedourpity.blogspot.com/2008/10/in-support-of-real-truth.html
I, like others who have commented here, do tend to lean toward the "extreme troll" theory: The blog writer in question appears to be tied to Athiest support groups, which would explain the thrill he/she would get by getting a mostly-Christian group of people to "pray" for him/her. Also, an Amazon wish list has titles of books about lying and child abuse--darkly comedic in light of the people with which the blog appeared to be allied.
Or is this still considered Munchausen's? I guess the writer killed off a kid, just like the in-person version of the disease. I'm curious to hear a viewpoint from someone who isn't invested in liking or disliking that little cable show. Thanks!
Posted by: Kuromi | Oct 8, 2008 2:03:35 AM
Oops, I mis-wrote when I called the Internet sleuths "show-lovers." They are more like "show appreciators" who believe the show has both bad and good points, rather than take extreme sides.
Posted by: Kuromi | Oct 8, 2008 2:15:31 AM
Augh, I also noticed a typo in my original post, in the third-from-bottom graph: "moderated" should be "moderate." Big difference! Guess I'm as big a loser as Internet extremists, seeing as I'm writing late at night when unable to edit myself better :)
Posted by: Kuromi | Oct 8, 2008 2:20:42 AM
Thet article at the link above is confusing and poorly written. It leaves more questions unanswered than it answers.
Other mistakes in your post-
1.allot
2.lackadasial
3.Faulty logic/prejudicial-
"Internet groups dedicated to snarking about the show eventually evolved/degenerated into an intensely emotional angry mob, rationalizing their hate by saying they only cared about the children's welfare, all of whom were expressed and supported by an increasing number of blogs."
4.septups
5.Not a sentence-
"up, the sick son died, and mourners posted truely sad condolensces everywhere, including a tribute site that was shut almost as soon as it began."
6.Poor sentence structure/run-on sentence-
"A group of show-lovers, who started a blog with the idea of being much more moderated, yesterday posted information that seems to indicate Penn Mommy is someone who is either an extreme troll or else is suffering from something similar to Munchhausen's By Internet."
Posted by: Connie | Oct 8, 2008 9:10:41 AM
Hmmm, Connie seems to be one of those uber-anti-fans of that show. (I personally don't get the extreme emotions on either side.) Since Kuromi mentioned that she/he was making writing mistakes because it was late (looks like the post was made around 2AM), I'd be inclined to give her/him a pass.
The points she and others made about "extreme trolling" (or whatever the correct term would be) are what I'm interested in, too. Joanna Schaffhausen's story reminded me of the New York Times story a few months ago that talked about all the different faces of trolling (like harassing a tech blogger or the family of a dead teen boy). The NYTimes was more about trolling for the laughs, or LOLs. But I guess wanting the attention of a duped audience is as much a sign of neediness as wanting people to feel sorry for you because of illness and/or death.
Posted by: anonymous | Oct 8, 2008 1:23:04 PM
Hey Connie,
Don't I see you posting at Musing. Are you an English teacher? Are you annoyed right now with something?
Posted by: Pamela | Oct 8, 2008 1:25:36 PM
Hey Pam,
Are you still a believer?
Posted by: anonymous | Oct 8, 2008 1:38:57 PM
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9176141493603278667&postID
I've just been talking to one of the people in question. I've known her for quite awhile now. When I said I knew I meant I knew. The person that the other people are now harrassing is the person I have known for awhile. She's had her blog up for ages. She has been on various boards and places that I have been.
She is distantly related to pennmommy and so graciously allowed pennmommy and sons to stay at her house through this tragedy. Thus the same internet address.
They are not the same person. I have not been duped. She and I have talked about this since almost the beginning of the problem. These other people are such sharks and are so upset that yet again they are wrong, that they will take anything and twist anything to try to prove themselves right.
But once again they are wrong. They should just give up trying to shoot down everyone who says something they don't like. It keeps backfiring on them.
Notice their theme song. They aren't real. Every time someone comes forward to say something they don't like, they try to prove they don't exist. It's a pattern. It doesn't work because once again, they are wrong.
I've just been talking to one of the people in question. I've known her for quite awhile now. When I said I knew I meant I knew. The person that the other people are now harrassing is the person I have known for awhile. She's had her blog up for ages. She has been on various boards and places that I have been.
She is distantly related to pennmommy and so graciously allowed pennmommy and sons to stay at her house through this tragedy. Thus the same internet address.
They are not the same person. I have not been duped. She and I have talked about this since almost the beginning of the problem. These other people are such sharks and are so upset that yet again they are wrong, that they will take anything and twist anything to try to prove themselves right.
But once again they are wrong. They should just give up trying to shoot down everyone who says something they don't like. It keeps backfiring on them.
Notice their theme song. They aren't real. Every time someone comes forward to say something they don't like, they try to prove they don't exist. It's a pattern. It doesn't work because once again, they are wrong.
October 6, 2008 7:51 PM
Posted by: Leeza | Oct 8, 2008 3:35:03 PM
I think the Bakersfield lady that has the atheist blog decided to make up this "pennmommy" character for the fun of manipulating so many people and watching christians pray for someone who wasn't real. She sounds like she may also be into the attention and drama of talking about medical problems. Now someone posting for her says this lady is thinking of giving up her atheist blog because of all the "recent drama", how convenient. Why would this "pennmommy" person who supposedly had a son in the ICU at an L.A. hospital, stay with someone who lives about 100 miles away from L.A.? If I had a deathly ill son in an L.A. hospital I would be staying in L.A., but then that is the only way she could explain the Bakersfield I.P. There are some mentally sick people out there.
Posted by: traci | Oct 8, 2008 6:28:20 PM
Traci,
I think you are right. I just read everything on this and my, what a faker! There is one blog still defending her and now they are impersonating someone else. That's where the above post from Leeza is from. Now that blog owner is claiming to know this possummomma. What a crock of crap!
Posted by: tootsie | Oct 8, 2008 7:48:37 PM
When you creating a profitable Internet and online business, it is very important that you create a meaningful business plan. Your business plan will be a road map into the future. A good business plan can make all the difference between business success in business failure.
Posted by: josh-internet business | Oct 9, 2008 6:15:26 AM
Post a comment
