Sender credibility and deception detection

George, Joey F.; Tilley, Patti; Giordano, Gabriel A.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.027

Cited by 24 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in instances when a user first visits a website for a firm about which the user has no pre-existing knowledge, the user will, by necessity, use the visual and operational characteristics presented on the website to evaluate the website and the vender. Extant research shows that what people see can strongly influence how they interpret websites (Lowry et al, 2014) and that the antecedents that influence the prominence of website features can influence credibility (George et al, 2014). Our results add to this research by showing that the factors that influence how a user interprets the characteristics of the website are also critical in predicting the way that a user evaluates whether or not the user will buy something from the website.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

“…Given that both we and George et al (2014) found support for the PIT model, we expect that examining the entire model would help to extend PIT's usefulness and application. For example, George et al (2014) show that the model is useful in Web-based deception research, which suggests it would be useful in other contexts.…”

Section: Implications For Research and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ours is the first study to examine PIT in its entirety, and, given our results, we suggest that we have much work to do to apply and extend this theory. For example, while we examined PIT's core predictions, George, Tilley, and Giordano (2014) explored several antecedents to prominence in a deception study and found that these factors helped to predict credibility. A potentially fruitful line of research would be not only to explore prominence and interpretation together (as we have done) but also to examine the antecedents proposed in Fogg's original theory.…”

Section: Implications For Research and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some have tried to apply the PIT model tangentially or partially. For example, George et al (2014) explored the antecedents of prominence in a deception detection study. They tested four of the five factors related to prominence and found a strong relation with perceived credibility.…”

Section: Figure 1 Prominence-interpretation Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Website Credibility Assessment: An Empirical - Investigation of Prominence-interpretation Theory

George

Mirsadikov²,

Mennecke³

2016

THCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:While a variety of research studies have examined factors that influence individuals' attitudes toward and use of websites, an important yet understudied stream looks at the role of website credibility. We examine website credibility through the lens of prominence-interpretation theory. Fogg (2003) developed this theory to help explain the relationships between what users observe about a website, how they interpret it, and how observation and interpretation together determine website credibility. In this paper, we look specifically at the relationship between prominence and interpretation and how these variables interact to influence attitudes about website credibility. We examined this relationship using a controlled laboratory experiment in which we exposed subjects to a website and asked them what they saw and how they interpreted what they saw. We analyzed these data using discriminant analysis and show that the interaction between prominence and interpretation accurately predicts attitudes about credibility, which offers strong support for prominence-interpretation theory. We discuss these findings and their implications for theory and practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Implications For Research and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Research and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figure 1 Prominence-interpretation Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Website Credibility Assessment: An Empirical - Investigation of Prominence-interpretation Theory

George

Mirsadikov²,

Mennecke³

2016

THCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Urgency cues, habitual media use, and high email load play an important role in this susceptibility (Vishwanath et al, 2011). The credibility of a sender is also an important factor (George et al, 2014).…”

Section: Deception and Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulative Imputation in Distributed Decision Support Settings: The Implications of Information Asymmetry and Aggregation Complexity

Malekovic¹,

Sutanto

Goutas

2016

Decision Support Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to earlier research, distributed decision support structures are susceptible to deception. We complement the existing works by analyzing group members' attempts to manipulate group decisions supported by distributed communications. Experimentally, we manipulated two systemic features of a distributed support structure: the members' information asymmetry and decision rule complexity. Both of these features refer to structural properties of aggregated information exchange. We confirmed several hypothesized effects: An increase in the information asymmetry in the aggregation of information increases the incidence of the members' manipulative tendency. It also increases the effectiveness of the members' manipulative imputations. However, the complexity of a decision rule negatively moderates both of these effects. We point out the theoretical relevance and managerial implications of our findings. We conclude that managing team members' information asymmetry and complexity of issues under their practical consideration may result in valuable disclosures.

show abstract

Looking guilty: Handcuffing suspects influences judgements of deception

Zloteanu

Salman

Krumhuber

et al. 2022

Journal Invest Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Veracity judgements are important in legal and investigative contexts. However, people are poor judges of deception, often relying on incorrect behavioural cues when these may reflect the situation more than the sender's internal state. We investigated one such situational factor relevant to forensic contexts: handcuffing suspects. Judges-police officers (n = 23) and laypersons (n = 83)-assessed recordings of suspects, providing truthful and deceptive responses in an interrogation setting where half were handcuffed. Handcuffing was predicted to undermine efforts to judge veracity by constraining suspects' gesticulation and by priming stereotypes of criminality. It was found that both laypersons and police officers were worse at detecting deception when judging handcuffed suspects compared to non-handcuffed suspects, while not affecting their judgement bias; police officers were also overconfident in their judgements. The findings suggest that handcuffing can negatively impact veracity judgements, highlighting the need for research on situational factors to better inform forensic practice.

show abstract

Sender credibility and deception detection

Cited by 24 publications

References 30 publications

Website Credibility Assessment: An Empirical - Investigation of Prominence-interpretation Theory

Website Credibility Assessment: An Empirical - Investigation of Prominence-interpretation Theory

Manipulative Imputation in Distributed Decision Support Settings: The Implications of Information Asymmetry and Aggregation Complexity

Looking guilty: Handcuffing suspects influences judgements of deception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About