Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT) postulates that interactive deception differs from noninteractive deception due to combined influences of deceiver goals and social skills, mutual influence processes between sender and receiver, feedback, and interaction dynamics. An experiment tested hypotheses that (a) interactive deception displays differ from truthful ones only at the outset of interaction and approximate truthful displays over time, (b) displays are moderated by deceiver social skills, (c) deceivers adapt to receiver communication with reciprocal or compensatory displays, (d) low involvement by receivers conveys negative feedback that instigates more behavioral adjustments by deceivers than does high involvement, and (e) receivers’ postinteraction judgments of deceivers are directly related to deceiver behavioral displays. An experiment in which senders alternated between telling the truth and deceiving, and partners varied their own level of involvement, produced supportive results that have implications for the stability of, and causal mechanisms underlying, deception displays and interpersonal communication generally.

Pages: 268-289An analysis of verbal behavior was undertaken to test principles of interpersonal deception theory (IDT). I t was predicted that language choice in deceptive messages would reflect strategic attempts to manage information through nonimmediate language. This linguistic profile, though, was expected to be altered in response to preinteractional factors -relational and behavioral familiarity-and interactional factors -form of deception and receiver suspicion. Results from two investigations are reported: a secondary analysis on interactions in an earlier study (Burgoon, Buller, Dillman, & Walther, 1995) and analysis of a primary experiment employing a 2 (relationship) x 2 (receiver expertise) x 2 (receiver suspicion) x 2 (truth/deception) within-subjects factorial design. As expected, senders displayed greater verbal nonimmediacy when deceiving. Expertise had a greater effect on linguistic behavior than a prior relationship with the receiver, with senders using more verbal nonimmediacy with novice receivers. Senders were more verbally nonimmediate when equivocating. Suspicion produced a mixed pattern of linguistic cues. The possibility that changes produced by preinteraction and interactional factors were strategic attempts to bolster credibility is discussed.

The research summarized in this report reresents a four-year journey into the uncharted territory of interpersonal deception. The emerging picture reorients thinking about the nature of deceptive qncounters by synthesizing our interdependent straris of research into communicator credibility, nonverbal behavior, interpersonal adaptation, and social influence. Our Interpersonal Deception Theory recognizes deception as a communicative event, rather than merely a psychological phenomenonL In so doing, it raises serious challenges to the way decept>':,-has been understood previously. It also offers numerous implications for fundprnental featur, .of interpersonal communication across a variety of communication contexts. Several organizations and individuals were instrumental In bringing this research to fruition. The generous financial support from the Office of Basic Research (now the Oflfi of Research and Advanced Concepts) in the U.S. Army Research Institute provided the structure and resources for conducting these experiments. Just as, important was the intellectual support provided by Drs. Michael Kaplan, Michael Drillings, and George Lawton. Their collegial spirit allo, ... 'us to pursue our ideas about deception, sometimes down unanticipated paths. We hope they agree that the journey has provided a fresh perspective on a common communication phenomenon. We regret that we are no longer able to travel this road together. Experiment 3 could not have been conducted with the cooperation and invaluable assistance of the Army Research Institute Field Unit at Ft. Huachuca, especially Dr. Beverly Knapp, Ms. Ann Lee, and Dr. Julie Hopson, and the officers and personnel at the Human Intelligence school. We also wish to acknowledge the additional financial support for the graduate students working on the contracted research provided by Augmentation Awards for Science and Engineering Research Training (ASSERT) from the U. S. Army Research Office. The successful completion of this contract depended greatly upon the work of several ý!ight, enthusiastic graduate research assistants, Including Walid Afift,

This article reports on a secondary analysis offive studies performed originally by Bavelas and colleagues in 1990 to further describe the behavioral profile associated with one common type of deception, equivocation. This analysis was grounded in Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT) posited by Burgoon and Buller in 1994. Ratings of information dimensions revealed that equivocal statements were found to be less clear and conversationally complete than truthful statements. Nonverbal involvement, fluency, dominance, formality cues, time spent talking, response latency, smiling, nodding, and linguistic immediacy cues were compared in responses under conflict (equivocal statements) and no conflict (truthful statements). Consistent with IDT, senders enacted information management (appearing more withdrawn) and behavior management (being more kinesically expressive). Senders also showed arousal (more tension cues), negative affect (less pleasantness), and performance decrements (more filled pauses) when equivocating. This suggested that behavior management was achieved through interchannel compensation; however, equivocation consequently contained channel discrepancies. The behavioral profile of equivocation did not depart substantially from that associated with falsification. Rather, equivocation and falsification showed a general deception profile of greater kinesic expressiveness, shorter response latencies, and more linguistic immediacy in the experiment comparing truthful, falsified, and equivocal replies.

No abstract