An Exploration of Deception as a Communication Construct

Abstract

Even though most of us lie from time to time, it is really quite surprising how little is known about such behaviors. Through controlled observation and laboratory testing, this study attempted to determine what verbal and nonverbal behaviors were characteristic of intentionally deceptive communicators. Seventy-six videotaped interviews provided a data base for the analysis of 32 dependent measures. In addition to analyses of specific behavioral differences between deceivers and nondeceivers, the authors provide a conceptual framework for the study of deception-predicting that deceivers will exhibit significantly more uncertainty, vagueness, nervousness, reticence, dependence, and unpleasantness than nondeceivers.Few of us can escape the fact that lying has played an important role in the development, maintenance, and the termination of human relationships. Widespread lip service is given to the platitudes "honesty is the best policy" and "people should tell it like it is." To lie is to be labeled "undermining," "malicious," or ''morally reprehensible." Persons from all walks of life extol the virtues of telling the truth while decrying any act of deception. Well-intended moralisms all.Despite these fervent admonitions, duplicity seems to be a constituent of nearly everyone's communicative repertoire. The rudiments of lying are often learned at an early age, by observing the communicative strategies employed by parents and peers and by undergoing punishments for being truthful. From introspection alone, it seems clear that lying is an adaptive behavior first practiced in situations where it is a harbinger of success or, at least, promises to help us avoid negative sanctions.Thereafter, the selective force working for the continuation and escalation of lying is its efficiency in solving interpersonal or other problems. The fact th.at deception, as a communicative strategy, is often rewarded causes us t o resort frequently to varying degrees of fabrication to suit our personal, pragmatic purposes. Cavil though we will at the fly-by-night salesman, lying works. In addition to rhetorical profit, Wolk and Henley (1970) see psychological dividends to be the due of the deceptive communicator:The sheer prevalence of lying does mean that a climate of deceit is the psychological weather of our age and that the person who can tolerate this climate with a minimum of stressful guilt will reap psychological benefits from the acceptance of the realities. . . . We believe that this civilization's climate of deceit .makes lies not only unavoidable, but indispensible. They actually help people to preserve their emotional equilibrium. (p. 7)In short, lying is publicly condemned, yet privately practiced by a significant proportion of the population; it is a phenomenon heavily laden with various stigmata, yet a device that can be rhetorically effective; it is a ubiquitous entity which seems antithetical to the bywords of this era-"credibility" and "trust."With these conflicting thoughts in mind, we undertook a diagnosis of deceptive ...

Lie experts' beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception

“…A possible explanation of why observers associate deception with an increase in movements is that they.assume that liars are nervous and that they will behave nervously (Knapp, Dennis, & Hart, 1974;KOhnken, 1989;Kraut & Poe, 1980;Riggio & Friedman, 1983).…”

“…In the emotional approach (Knapp, Hart, & Dennis, 1974;KOhnken, 1989;Riggio & Friedman, 1983) it is emphasized that deceiving causes physiological reactions, such as high blood pressure, increased heart rate, and increased respiration rate. The physiological reaction is the conse-quence of arousal that is associated with deception.…”

Analysing Deception in Written Witness Statements

“…It may be that in the absence of witnesses, deceivers feel freer to construct an entire world of the lie in order to be convincing. This verbose but vague strategy has been identified previously in interpersonal contexts (Anolli, Balconi & Ciceri, 2002;Buller & Burgoon, 1994;Dulany, 1982;Hancock, Curry, Goorha & Woodworth, 2005;Knapp, Hart & Dennis, 1974;Kuiken 1981), and is specifically associated with addressing silent or acquiescent addressees (Anolli, Balconi & Ciceri, 2002). The impersonal approach has also been identified in interpersonal communication in previous research (Balconi & Ciceri, 2002;Buller & Burgoon, 1994).…”

The Investigative Interview: A Review of Practice and Related Research

“…-less plausibility (Kraut, 1978;Riggio & Friedman, 1983); -fewer past tense verbs (Watson, 1981;Dulaney, 1982;Knapp, Hart & Dennis, 1974); -more first-person pronouns (Watson, 1981);…”