Judgments of deceptive communications: A multidimensional analysis

Pope, William R.; Forsyth, Donelson R.

doi:10.3758/bf03330573

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the intensity of these responses depended on the importance that participants attributed to the event that was lied about. Indeed, people more strongly condemn extremely self-serving lies compared to more trivial and negligible ones (Peterson, Peterson, & Seeto, 1983;Pope & Forsyth, 1986). This suggests, in part, that the degree to which a lie is perceived as more or less exaggerated may inXuence how people evaluate and respond to the perpetrator of the lie.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

The price of deceptive behavior: Disliking and lying to people who lie to us

Tyler

Feldman

Reichert

2006

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 97%

The price of deceptive behavior: Disliking and lying to people who lie to us

Tyler

Feldman

Reichert

2006

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although scientific interest in lying and deception is rapidly growing (e.g., Buller & Burgoon, 1994;DePaulo, Epstein, & Wyer, 1993;Keating & Heltman, 1994;Miller & Stiff, 1993), an empirical foundation oftheories on lying is still lacking. Some researchers who empirically studied lying based their investigations on the typologies of lies presented in the ethical philosophical literature (Lindskold & Han, 1986;Lindskold & Walters, 1983), while others based their investigations on empirical material from research conducted without a clear underlying theory (Maier & Lavrakas, 1976;Pope & Forsyth, 1986).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What stimulus material Maier and Lavrakas used, however, remains unclear. Pope and Forsyth (1986) aimed to identify the perceptual dimensions that underlie the various kinds of lies suggested by the ethical literature. They used a representative selection of short descriptions of situations in which one person is lying to another, that were previously written by psychology students and rewritten by the authors to increase comparability in length and language.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Situational Determinants of the Acceptability of Telling Lies¹

Backbier

Hoogstraten

Terwogt-Kouwenhoven

1997

J Applied Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

KATHARINA MEERUM TERWOGT-KOUWENHOVENIt was tested whether the same factors people take into account when involved in the decision to lie apply to the evaluation of lies presented in scenarios. The scenarios represented 12 different situation categories formed by the crossing of the ntotivr for lying (social. individualistic, egoistic), the relative importance of the situation (important matter, unimportant matter), and the closeness of the relation between the subject and the receiver of the lie (best friend, acquaintance). The acceptability of lying was evaluated from 2 perspectives (self, others) by 180 women of the general public. The results show that as the interest of the person that is lied to becomes greater, lying becomes more acceptable. As the interest of the liar becomes greater, lying becomes less acceptable. The systematically higher estimations of acceptability attributed to others indicate a false-uniqueness effect.The proposition that lying is to be rejected in most instances seems to be advocated not only by social scientists and philosophers (e.g., Barnes, 1994; Bok, 1978) but also by laypeople. From group interviews, conducted as a pilot study (Backbier, 1994) in order to gain a deeper insight into the way people view lying and deception in everyday life, it appeared that the interviewees reacted rather negatively to lying in general and even more negatively to other people's lies. In contrast, however, the interviewees reported many instances in which they lied themselves, and even showed a great deal of understanding for their own lies. The interviewees did not seem to be aware of having a somewhat dual 'This study was conducted as part of a research project on "lying and deception in everyday life." The authors would like to thank Monique Crooy, Jaro van der Ende, Milja Falentijn, Jutka Halberstadt, and Nieske Winters for their assistance in developing the scenarios and collecting the data.

show abstract

“…It did not impact how participants rated the bullshitter's warmth, competence, or morality. This is surprising in light of past research demonstrating people's sensitivities to the consequences when making judgments (Jehn & Scott, 2008;Levine & Schweitzer, 2014;Pope & Forsyth, 1986). Of course, it is entirely possible that our manipulations of the consequences were too one-sided.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Perceptions of Bullshitters: Is it Better or Worse Than Lying, And Do Intent and Consequences Matter?

Cole,

Erber

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments investigated contextual factors influencing perceptions of liars and bullshitters. Participants rated actors engaging in lying or bullshitting with mild or severe consequences. Liars were perceived with lesser warmth and desired affiliation compared to bullshitters (Experiments 1 & 2). Actions with severe consequences led to judgments of lower morality, warmth, competence, and desired affiliation (Experiments 1-3). Only liars were penalized for severe consequences in desired affiliation (Experiment 3). Experiment 4 explored bullshitters' evaluations based on consequences and intentions. Results revealed reduced warmth, morality, and desired affiliation for bullshitters with malicious intent and actions resulting in severe consequences. These findings highlight the role of consequences and intentions in shaping perceptions of liars and bullshitters.

show abstract

Judgments of deceptive communications: A multidimensional analysis

Cited by 13 publications

References 5 publications

The price of deceptive behavior: Disliking and lying to people who lie to us

The price of deceptive behavior: Disliking and lying to people who lie to us

Situational Determinants of the Acceptability of Telling Lies¹

Perceptions of Bullshitters: Is it Better or Worse Than Lying, And Do Intent and Consequences Matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Judgments of deceptive communications: A multidimensional analysis

Cited by 13 publications

References 5 publications

The price of deceptive behavior: Disliking and lying to people who lie to us

The price of deceptive behavior: Disliking and lying to people who lie to us

Situational Determinants of the Acceptability of Telling Lies1

Perceptions of Bullshitters: Is it Better or Worse Than Lying, And Do Intent and Consequences Matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Situational Determinants of the Acceptability of Telling Lies¹