Information Manipulation Theory

Abstract

Information manipulation theory (IMT) is a theory of deceptive discourse design, authored by interpersonal communication scholar Steven McCornack. IMT argues that when deceiving others, people play with or “manipulate” relevant information in myriad ways within their discourse. According to IMT, the particular ways in which people manipulate information align with the conversational maxims suggested by philosopher Paul Grice, in his theory of conversational implicature. Although influential in impacting subsequent research, IMT also has drawn criticism, most notably for not being a testable theory. In response to this criticism, McCornack presented an elaboration of IMT, IMT2. IMT2 is a propositional theory of deceptive discourse production that is rooted in cognitive neuroscience, artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, and speech production. IMT2 consists of a central premise and 11 propositions deriving from this premise, grouped into three propositional sets: intentional states, cognitive load, and information manipulation.

Don't be deceived: Using linguistic analysis to learn how to discern online review authenticity

“…Based on specificity, authentic reviews were rich in nouns and spatial words yet scanty in terms of pronouns. Consistent with prior research (Johnson & Raye, ; McCornack, ; Ott et al, ), authentic reviews appeared more specific than fictitious entries. Fictitious reviews were more exaggerated than authentic ones—a finding consistent with prior studies (DePaulo et al, ; Yoo & Gretzel, ).…”

“…Comprehensibility is the extent to which reviews are easy to understand. Differences in comprehensibility between authentic and fictitious reviews stem from the information manipulation theory (McCornack, ), as well as the self‐presentational perspective (DePaulo et al, ). The information manipulation theory expects authentic and fictitious reviews to differ in quantity and clarity, both of which shape comprehensibility.…”

“…Specificity is the extent to which reviews are detailed. Differences in specificity between authentic and fictitious reviews stem from the information manipulation theory (McCornack, ), as well as the reality monitoring theory (Johnson & Raye, ). The information manipulation theory suggests that authentic reviews could be more specific than fictitious ones.…”

Channel Choice, Justification of Deception, and Detection

“…When the distributor gave the receiver less than half the distribution amount and omitted information about the distribution amount, this was categorized deceptive because past research on ultimatum games has found that receivers often view offers of less than half as inequitable and punish their partner as a result (Huck, ; Kim et al, ; Straub & Murnighan, ; Valenzuela & Srivastava, ). Therefore, omitting information about the offer being less than half the distribution amount was advantageous to the distributor and deceptive (McCornack, ). However, previous research has found that deceptive omission is often viewed as less deceptive than lies but more deceptive than truths (Ritov & Baron, ; Spranca, Minsk, & Baron, ; Tenbrunsel & Messick, ; Van Swol et al, ; Van Swol, Malhotra, & Braun, ; for an alternative perspective see Levine, ).…”

Predictors of the authenticity of Internet health rumours

“…Many studies suggest that there are certain factors associated with the elicitation of deception. According to the information manipulation theory, deceptive information often violates the conversational principle of quantity; that is, information may be manipulated simply by altering the amount of information that is presented to mislead listeners. The deceiver most likely creates more information when time is available or efforts at persuasion may be beneficial and tends to increase the quantity of information to appear believable or present additional evidence to support his or her deception .…”